User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 9:28:58 AM EDT
Got an interesting note from Ron Paul today
 Dear Supporter, Our good friend in Liberty, Peter Schiff, is planning a run for Senate in Connecticut against Chris Dodd. The grassroots across the country are organizing a money bomb for him today to raise money and send a powerful message to the political elites that freedom is popular and that Liberty can. Our country needs Peter Schiff in Washington, and you can help today. Please go to SchiffAThon.Com right now and make a contribution. Together, we can help make history. In Liberty, Ron Paul ETA: Peter Schiff  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 9:30:52 AM EDT
[#1]
Don't be surprised if his body is found in a back alley inside a dumpster with 5 suicide shots in his back
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 9:31:16 AM EDT
[#2]
Sent $100 yesterday Dodd needs to go and Schiff would be a nice addition.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 9:31:59 AM EDT
[#3]
RIGHT ON!!! Thanks for the good news.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 9:32:41 AM EDT
[#4]
Tag for later donation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 9:33:25 AM EDT
[#5]
Tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 9:36:28 AM EDT
[#6]
What party?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 9:37:42 AM EDT
[#7]
I hope the guy doesn't have any skeletons in the closet. The dems will surely search for them and hammer his campaign.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 9:40:52 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
What party? Does it Really matter at this point so long as he is not a dem????? Send a message that we will replace you.......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 9:45:00 AM EDT
[#9]
god i hope dodd gets the boot along with arlen spector. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 9:49:02 AM EDT
[#10]
There is another Republican, Rob Simmons, who is also running for the Republican nomination for the 2010 senate race. He is already polling better than Chris Dodd, and is a lot better known than Schiff. It would be better for us to back him than Schiff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 9:50:11 AM EDT
[#11]
this is important. the cycle of career politicians needs to end. his success could encourage others from outside to run.
also, some of his market calls have been way off, but he's been close enough on many that i'd feel guilty not sending him something.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 10:00:28 AM EDT
[#12]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 10:00:33 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: There is another Republican, Rob Simmons, who is also running for the Republican nomination for the 2010 senate race. He is already polling better than Chris Dodd, and is a lot better known than Schiff. It would be better for us to back him than Schiff. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?year=2006&person=400375 http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Rob_Simmons.htm Mixed bag he's basically a career politician/government buraucrat of the big government neoconservative variety. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 10:02:53 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
What party? Does it Really matter at this point so long as he is not a dem????? Send a message that we will replace you.......... It will matter if he runs on an independent party. I think he would make a great politician, and I would like to see him push a 3rd party into the forefront. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2009 10:04:41 AM EDT
[#15]
750k raised in one day. Moneybomb has been a success! I sent $25.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:02:39 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
There is another Republican, Rob Simmons, who is also running for the Republican nomination for the 2010 senate race. He is already polling better than Chris Dodd, and is a lot better known than Schiff. It would be better for us to back him than Schiff. By "us", do you mean the Republican Party establishment that gave us massive deficits, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, open borders, wireless wiretapping, a housing bubble and a weak dollar? (Which is not to say that they didn't have help from the democrats). Screw them. I don't care about the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. They can both go to hell. The Republicans talk a good game when they are out of power, but when they get in power, they demonstrate their big-government statist tendencies. The last thing we need is another milquetoast Republican who is a good party yes-man who toes the line. So Simmons has better name recognition and is polling better more than a year away from the election. Big deal. That means nothing, especially in a race where the incumbent (Dodd) is in trouble. That was the same argument that was made to con people into supporting Bob Dole and George Bush. And they were a disaster for country. And for the Republican Party which many here care so deeply for. How about this for a novel concept: let's support the best man or woman for the office and support them for a change. Peter Schiff is clearly the best candidate for the job. He is an honest, intelligent man, who is not a politician. He supports fiscal restraint, a strong currency, and individual rights. He is an excellent debater and very quick on his feet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:07:40 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is another Republican, Rob Simmons, who is also running for the Republican nomination for the 2010 senate race. He is already polling better than Chris Dodd, and is a lot better known than Schiff. It would be better for us to back him than Schiff. By "us", do you mean the Republican Party establishment that gave us massive deficits, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, open borders, wireless wiretapping, a housing bubble and a weak dollar? (Which is not to say that they didn't have help from the democrats). Screw them. I don't care about the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. They can both go to hell. The Republicans talk a good game when they are out of power, but when they get in power, they demonstrate their big-government statist tendencies. The last thing we need is another milquetoast Republican who is a good party yes-man who toes the line. So Simmons has better name recognition and is polling better more than a year away from the election. Big deal. That means nothing, especially in a race where the incumbent (Dodd) is in trouble. That was the same argument that was made to con people into supporting Bob Dole and George Bush. And they were a disaster for country. And for the Republican Party which many here care so deeply for. How about this for a novel concept: let's support the best man or woman for the office and support them for a change. Peter Schiff is clearly the best candidate for the job. He is an honest, intelligent man, who is not a politician. He supports fiscal restraint, a strong currency, and individual rights. He is an excellent debater and very quick on his feet. Well when you move to CT you can vote for him. It's hard to say he is "clearly the best candidate" when he just announced he was running today. I listened to the interview on a local raido show this morning. Currently Schiff, Simmons and Linda McMahon are going to be running in the Republican primaries. I am willing to give Schiff a chance when I see how he performs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:18:19 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
this is important. the cycle of career politicians needs to end. his success could encourage others from outside to run. also, some of his market calls have been way off, but he's been close enough on many that i'd feel guilty not sending him something. I think this is one of the more important reasons to support him. If a libertarian-leaning guy who is not a politician, can win in a "liberal" and "blue" state like Connecticut, it would do two things. First, it would shatter the false left-right paradigm that allows the elites at the top to divide the American people and play them off against each other. If a constitutionalist could win in Connecticut, how about New York or California? Secondly, it would encourage other non-politicians to run for office. BTW, I don't think he's been off on many of his calls. The only thing he didn't get right was that he didn't foresee that people would be stupid enough to run to the dollar in 2008. As a result of the deleveraging, many of the stocks he recommended fell by over 50% (more when you take the currency into account). However, he simply advised folks to buy more at the fire sale prices. Since then, many of those stock have tripled or quadrupled. If you followed his advice over the past decade, you are way ahead of the game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:20:36 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
There is another Republican, Rob Simmons, who is also running for the Republican nomination for the 2010 senate race. He is already polling better than Chris Dodd, and is a lot better known than Schiff. It would be better for us to back him than Schiff. never heard of him |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:22:45 PM EDT
[#20]
What is his opinion of his primary opposition Linda MacMahon. I would love to hear that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:25:24 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Got an interesting note from Ron Paul today Dear Supporter, Our good friend in Liberty, Peter Schiff, is planning a run for Senate in Connecticut against Chris Dodd. The grassroots across the country are organizing a money bomb for him today to raise money and send a powerful message to the political elites that freedom is popular and that Liberty can. Our country needs Peter Schiff in Washington, and you can help today. Please go to SchiffAThon.Com right now and make a contribution. Together, we can help make history. In Liberty, Ron Paul ETA: Peter Schiff  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpwHe'll never make it out of the primaries... A real Republican - not a gold buggering fool - will get on the ticket... 'Dr Wrong' couldn't do his last job very well, why make him a Senator... Although I have to admit, even HE would be better than Dodd... But that's not saying anything about Schiff |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:26:57 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: I hope the guy doesn't have any skeletons in the closet. The dems will surely search for them and hammer his campaign. He has the same 'Crazy Uncle' problem as Ron Paul... His 'skeletons' consist of a history of absurd & rediculous predictions in his past career as an economic analyst (always betting *against* America), and being a gold bug...  even before he faces Dodd... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:27:46 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: There is another Republican, Rob Simmons, who is also running for the Republican nomination for the 2010 senate race. He is already polling better than Chris Dodd, and is a lot better known than Schiff. It would be better for us to back him than Schiff. By "us", do you mean the Republican Party establishment that gave us massive deficits, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, open borders, wireless wiretapping, a housing bubble and a weak dollar? (Which is not to say that they didn't have help from the democrats). Screw them. I don't care about the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. They can both go to hell. The Republicans talk a good game when they are out of power, but when they get in power, they demonstrate their big-government statist tendencies. The last thing we need is another milquetoast Republican who is a good party yes-man who toes the line. So Simmons has better name recognition and is polling better more than a year away from the election. Big deal. That means nothing, especially in a race where the incumbent (Dodd) is in trouble. That was the same argument that was made to con people into supporting Bob Dole and George Bush. And they were a disaster for country. And for the Republican Party which many here care so deeply for. How about this for a novel concept: let's support the best man or woman for the office and support them for a change. Peter Schiff is clearly the best candidate for the job. He is an honest, intelligent man, who is not a politician. He supports fiscal restraint, a strong currency, and individual rights. He is an excellent debater and very quick on his feet. He's a fool on all things economics, who constantly bets against the US based on a twisted & absurd moralization of economic concepts... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:29:10 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Well when you move to CT you can vote for him. It's hard to say he is "clearly the best candidate" when he just announced he was running today. I listened to the interview on a local raido show this morning. Currently Schiff, Simmons and Linda McMahon are going to be running in the Republican primaries. I am willing to give Schiff a chance when I see how he performs. Fair enough, but I have been listening to Schiff for about 3 years now and I have read both his books. So it's fair to say I know a lot about his philosophy and attitude. I don't think anyone, in either party is going to be able to successfully get him to sit down and shut up, when it comes to speaking the truth. There is a ton of his stuff up at youtube and he has archived his weekly radio shows on his website at http://www.europac.net/radioshow_archives.asp As for the other candidates, I've looked into them briefly. McMahon is a apparently a successful businesswoman in the entertainment industry (pro wrestling). She can probably balance a checkbook, which is more than you can say for about 95 Senators. But does she understand monetary policy and the like? I don't know. Simmons is a career politician and good party man. We have about 95 of them already in the Senate. Do we really need one more? There is another guy running who raised a lot of money for Bush, so Bush made him ambassador to Ireland. Another good party man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:31:16 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Tag for later donation. Hell yes. Schiff FTW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:31:18 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is another Republican, Rob Simmons, who is also running for the Republican nomination for the 2010 senate race. He is already polling better than Chris Dodd, and is a lot better known than Schiff. It would be better for us to back him than Schiff. By "us", do you mean the Republican Party establishment that gave us massive deficits, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, open borders, wireless wiretapping, a housing bubble and a weak dollar? (Which is not to say that they didn't have help from the democrats). Screw them. I don't care about the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. They can both go to hell. The Republicans talk a good game when they are out of power, but when they get in power, they demonstrate their big-government statist tendencies. The last thing we need is another milquetoast Republican who is a good party yes-man who toes the line. So Simmons has better name recognition and is polling better more than a year away from the election. Big deal. That means nothing, especially in a race where the incumbent (Dodd) is in trouble. That was the same argument that was made to con people into supporting Bob Dole and George Bush. And they were a disaster for country. And for the Republican Party which many here care so deeply for. How about this for a novel concept: let's support the best man or woman for the office and support them for a change. Peter Schiff is clearly the best candidate for the job. He is an honest, intelligent man, who is not a politician. He supports fiscal restraint, a strong currency, and individual rights. He is an excellent debater and very quick on his feet. He's a fool on all things economics, who constantly bets against the US based on a twisted & absurd moralization of economic concepts... Are you saying you have a better grasp on economics than Peter Schiff? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:34:40 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
He'll never make it out of the primaries... A real Republican - not a gold buggering fool - will get on the ticket... 'Dr Wrong' couldn't do his last job very well, why make him a Senator... Although I have to admit, even HE would be better than Dodd... But that's not saying anything about Schiff A real Republican? Are those like the Republicans during the last 8 years that weakened our dollar, doubled our debt, opened our borders, passed the Patriot Act, spied on Americans without warrants? You mean one of those? You need to back up your accusation of him being "Dr. Wrong". I'm not one of his clients, bur I have followed his advice over the last 3 years and have done much better than if I listed to the "experts". He predicted the dot-com bubble in the late 90s. He predicted the housing bubble earlier this decade and was laughed at. Really the only thing he missed was in 2008. I explained that a few posts up. If you didn't sell then, you are close to even due to a stellar 2009 in many of his stocks. If you followed his advice and backed up the truck in late 2008, you would have made a fortune. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:36:49 PM EDT
[#28]
Dave A does not like him, I'm sold! Anyone got a donation link?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:43:27 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Dave A does not like him, I'm sold! Anyone got a donation link? Peter Schiff for Senate website |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:50:35 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well when you move to CT you can vote for him. It's hard to say he is "clearly the best candidate" when he just announced he was running today. I listened to the interview on a local raido show this morning. Currently Schiff, Simmons and Linda McMahon are going to be running in the Republican primaries. I am willing to give Schiff a chance when I see how he performs. Fair enough, but I have been listening to Schiff for about 3 years now and I have read both his books. So it's fair to say I know a lot about his philosophy and attitude. I don't think anyone, in either party is going to be able to successfully get him to sit down and shut up, when it comes to speaking the truth. There is a ton of his stuff up at youtube and he has archived his weekly radio shows on his website at http://www.europac.net/radioshow_archives.asp As for the other candidates, I've looked into them briefly. McMahon is a apparently a successful businesswoman in the entertainment industry (pro wrestling). She can probably balance a checkbook, which is more than you can say for about 95 Senators. But does she understand monetary policy and the like? I don't know. Simmons is a career politician and good party man. We have about 95 of them already in the Senate. Do we really need one more? There is another guy running who raised a lot of money for Bush, so Bush made him ambassador to Ireland. Another good party man. I will be very honest with you. My main concern is his foreign policy stance. If it is along the same lines as Ron Paul's then he will not have my support. There are some differences between libertarians and conservatives when it comes to this issue and I happen to be a conservative on this issue. Rob Simmons served in Vietnam and earned two Bronze Stars. He also had a career with the CIA. His foreign policy experience is far beyond that of any of his challengers on either side. But I do like the fact that both Schiff and McMahon are successful business people that are not career politicians. So, like I said before, I am interested to see how the primaries go. In some ways it will be a win win no matter who gets the nomination. Dodd will lose to any of his opponents. It will be interesting to have a Republican Senator again in CT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:54:15 AM EDT
[#31]
Doesn't Simmons have a very solid gun rights record from his time in the US House?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:21:44 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: He'll never make it out of the primaries... A real Republican - not a gold buggering fool - will get on the ticket... 'Dr Wrong' couldn't do his last job very well, why make him a Senator... Although I have to admit, even HE would be better than Dodd... But that's not saying anything about Schiff A real Republican? Are those like the Republicans during the last 8 years that weakened our dollar, doubled our debt, opened our borders, passed the Patriot Act, spied on Americans without warrants? You mean one of those? Let's see: 1) The borders have been 'open' since 1776... Immigration law may have changed, but we have NEVER made a serious effort to do the impossible, i.e. physically secure the Mexican or Canadian border... 2) 'Doubling the debt'? So? 3) 'Weakening the dollar'? Yeah, right, whatever... What did GDP do over the same period of time? 4) 'Spying on Americans without warrants?' Never happened... Liberal bullshit that 'mysteriously' stopped being a concern once Bush left office... The 'truth' is that we spied on foreigners, whcih is a normal activity for any nation state... 5) passing the Patriot Act? Another 'nothing wrong with that' situation... The entire 'but it erodes civil liberties' line was pure crap, a lie told to disparage the prior administration... Once again, the 'threat to civil liberties' was immagined, and magically went away on 20/Jan/09.... You need to back up your accusation of him being "Dr. Wrong". I'm not one of his clients, bur I have followed his advice over the last 3 years and have done much better than if I listed to the "experts". He predicted the dot-com bubble in the late 90s. As did anyone with half a brain... He was wrong about the cause and result, of course... Like most gold-bugs, his predictions were all about a 'dollar catastrophe', and the blame was all on the Fed/banks, when in reality monetary policy had nothing to do with the .com bubble - it was 100% investor stupidity. He predicted the housing bubble earlier this decade and was laughed at. Same as above... Once again, Schiff got a 'uh-duh' statement right (housing prices being unsustainable). The problem is, that his explanation for WHY, as well as his prediction of 'WHAT NEXT' were both 100% wrong.... Once again, like most gold-addled idealogues, Schiff blamed the banks, inflation, and monetary policy... Not the actual cause: government meddling with lending standards. Once again, he was 100% wrong Then, he goes on to 'predict' everything completely wrong: (A) Gold going to $2000/oz... Shortly after he said this, it dropped to $800/oz or so from a 'peak' in the 1100s... (B) Oil going over $200/bbl... Oops... Try $60 (C) A world-wide 'decoupling' from the USD... Not only is this not happening, it can't happen unless the rest of the world wants to commit economic suicide... The US 'owns' all the alternatives (such as the IMF)... The Chinese can't become the new 'reserve' themselves, either - as we will see if OUR recession keeps going much longer, their economy is headed down the tubes too, they are totally dependant on American/European consumption to 'stay afloat'.... (D) Inflation.... Schiff (as his hair-brained ideology demands) called for massive inflation. Instead, we are seeing a DEFLATIONARY recession.... So, basically, he's wrong about everything except for the blatantly obvious... Really the only thing he missed was in 2008. I explained that a few posts up. If you didn't sell then, you are close to even due to a stellar 2009 in many of his stocks. If you followed his advice and backed up the truck in late 2008, you would have made a fortune. There is a word for people who complain about a 'weak dollar' and 'inflation' going into a DEFLATIONARY recession: MORON! In Schiff's case, it fits nicely.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:23:26 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is another Republican, Rob Simmons, who is also running for the Republican nomination for the 2010 senate race. He is already polling better than Chris Dodd, and is a lot better known than Schiff. It would be better for us to back him than Schiff. By "us", do you mean the Republican Party establishment that gave us massive deficits, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, open borders, wireless wiretapping, a housing bubble and a weak dollar? (Which is not to say that they didn't have help from the democrats). Screw them. I don't care about the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. They can both go to hell. The Republicans talk a good game when they are out of power, but when they get in power, they demonstrate their big-government statist tendencies. The last thing we need is another milquetoast Republican who is a good party yes-man who toes the line. So Simmons has better name recognition and is polling better more than a year away from the election. Big deal. That means nothing, especially in a race where the incumbent (Dodd) is in trouble. That was the same argument that was made to con people into supporting Bob Dole and George Bush. And they were a disaster for country. And for the Republican Party which many here care so deeply for. How about this for a novel concept: let's support the best man or woman for the office and support them for a change. Peter Schiff is clearly the best candidate for the job. He is an honest, intelligent man, who is not a politician. He supports fiscal restraint, a strong currency, and individual rights. He is an excellent debater and very quick on his feet. He's a fool on all things economics, who constantly bets against the US based on a twisted & absurd moralization of economic concepts... Are you saying you have a better grasp on economics than Peter Schiff? Most people have a better grasp of macro economics than Peter Schiff or Ron Paul... It doesn't take much... Note that ECONOMICS is not INVESTING.... If you're a believer in the 'Cult of Gold', your knowledge of economics is terminally damaged.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 1:31:51 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
I will be very honest with you. My main concern is his foreign policy stance. If it is along the same lines as Ron Paul's then he will not have my support. There are some differences between libertarians and conservatives when it comes to this issue and I happen to be a conservative on this issue. Rob Simmons served in Vietnam and earned two Bronze Stars. He also had a career with the CIA. His foreign policy experience is far beyond that of any of his challengers on either side. But I do like the fact that both Schiff and McMahon are successful business people that are not career politicians. So, like I said before, I am interested to see how the primaries go. In some ways it will be a win win no matter who gets the nomination. Dodd will lose to any of his opponents. It will be interesting to have a Republican Senator again in CT. He said on TV yesterday that he supports bringing the troops home because we cannot afford him. I agree with him. But I suspect he will support rebuilding and modernizing our armed forces since this is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government. Without debating the merits (or lack thereof) of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the simple fact is that we cannot afford it. We need to have a serious debate on our overseas commitments and military spending and prioritize. Is is more important to be in Afghanistan, Iraq, and 100 different countries, or is it more important to spend our limited resources developing new weapons systems and modernizing our military to meet future threats (China, etc...)? If we don't make this decision, it will be made for us. Right now, the Chinese and other nations are making a lot of stuff, saving their money, and loaning those savings to Americans to purchase their products and for the American government to run a $2 trillion dollar debt. At some point, they are going to figure out it is better for them to spend and invest their money in themselves rather to loan in to Americans in exchange for a depreciating currency. When the rest of the world cuts us off, we will be screwed. The decision then will be either 1) continue to spend money on the military but at a reduced rate, OR, 2) continue to make social security, medicare, and welfare payments but at a reduced rate. In a panic situation, which one do you think the American people will chose? Do the math. There are 1 million people in the military. There are 100 million people receiving checks from the government. The other choice is to hyperinflate, but that only puts off this decision and makes everything far worse. What Schiff is trying to do is substantially cut government spending so that the impact of the day of reckoning is minimized. Simmons is a probably a good party man. He will probably support a spending freeze in a lot of departments. But that isn't going to cut it. Entire departments need to have their budgets eliminated or slashed. I believe Schiff will vote to do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 1:38:07 PM EDT
[#35]
I like Schiff and his message, but frankly, I don't care who runs against Dodd as long as they win. Dodd is a real shit bag.
Though I knew I was wasting my time when in CT, I wrote the turd a few times on various issues. The last issue was related to gun control, where I stated that I was against banning "assault" weapons. His turd of a case worker or whatever wrote back and said that "No one needs an AK 47 or AR 15 to hunt". I never brought up hunting. These people are traitors and garbage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:41:36 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Doesn't Simmons have a very solid gun rights record from his time in the US House? Rob Simmons was "A" rated by the NRA. He is a friend to gun owners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:43:21 PM EDT
[#37]
If Schiff is elected, there is hope for change.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:45:09 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Dave A does not like him, I'm sold! Anyone got a donation link? Hell, that means I will double my donation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:45:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: I will be very honest with you. My main concern is his foreign policy stance. If it is along the same lines as Ron Paul's then he will not have my support. There are some differences between libertarians and conservatives when it comes to this issue and I happen to be a conservative on this issue. Rob Simmons served in Vietnam and earned two Bronze Stars. He also had a career with the CIA. His foreign policy experience is far beyond that of any of his challengers on either side. But I do like the fact that both Schiff and McMahon are successful business people that are not career politicians. So, like I said before, I am interested to see how the primaries go. In some ways it will be a win win no matter who gets the nomination. Dodd will lose to any of his opponents. It will be interesting to have a Republican Senator again in CT. He said on TV yesterday that he supports bringing the troops home because we cannot afford him. I agree with him. But I suspect he will support rebuilding and modernizing our armed forces since this is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government. Without debating the merits (or lack thereof) of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the simple fact is that we cannot afford it. We need to have a serious debate on our overseas commitments and military spending and prioritize. Is is more important to be in Afghanistan, Iraq, and 100 different countries, or is it more important to spend our limited resources developing new weapons systems and modernizing our military to meet future threats (China, etc...)? If we don't make this decision, it will be made for us. Right now, the Chinese and other nations are making a lot of stuff, saving their money, and loaning those savings to Americans to purchase their products and for the American government to run a $2 trillion dollar debt. At some point, they are going to figure out it is better for them to spend and invest their money in themselves rather to loan in to Americans in exchange for a depreciating currency. When the rest of the world cuts us off, we will be screwed. The decision then will be either 1) continue to spend money on the military but at a reduced rate, OR, 2) continue to make social security, medicare, and welfare payments but at a reduced rate. In a panic situation, which one do you think the American people will chose? Do the math. There are 1 million people in the military. There are 100 million people receiving checks from the government. The other choice is to hyperinflate, but that only puts off this decision and makes everything far worse. What Schiff is trying to do is substantially cut government spending so that the impact of the day of reckoning is minimized. Simmons is a probably a good party man. He will probably support a spending freeze in a lot of departments. But that isn't going to cut it. Entire departments need to have their budgets eliminated or slashed. I believe Schiff will vote to do that. The impact of military withdrawal will be far worse than any hypothetical, possible, 'has been 'coming now' for the past 20 years' economic collapse. We can't afford NOT to be out there - our national strength is the underpinning of our entire economy... Sorry, but no-go for 'bring the troops home'... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 3:04:51 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will be very honest with you. My main concern is his foreign policy stance. If it is along the same lines as Ron Paul's then he will not have my support. There are some differences between libertarians and conservatives when it comes to this issue and I happen to be a conservative on this issue. Rob Simmons served in Vietnam and earned two Bronze Stars. He also had a career with the CIA. His foreign policy experience is far beyond that of any of his challengers on either side. But I do like the fact that both Schiff and McMahon are successful business people that are not career politicians. So, like I said before, I am interested to see how the primaries go. In some ways it will be a win win no matter who gets the nomination. Dodd will lose to any of his opponents. It will be interesting to have a Republican Senator again in CT. He said on TV yesterday that he supports bringing the troops home because we cannot afford him. I agree with him. But I suspect he will support rebuilding and modernizing our armed forces since this is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government. Without debating the merits (or lack thereof) of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the simple fact is that we cannot afford it. We need to have a serious debate on our overseas commitments and military spending and prioritize. Is is more important to be in Afghanistan, Iraq, and 100 different countries, or is it more important to spend our limited resources developing new weapons systems and modernizing our military to meet future threats (China, etc...)? If we don't make this decision, it will be made for us. Right now, the Chinese and other nations are making a lot of stuff, saving their money, and loaning those savings to Americans to purchase their products and for the American government to run a $2 trillion dollar debt. At some point, they are going to figure out it is better for them to spend and invest their money in themselves rather to loan in to Americans in exchange for a depreciating currency. When the rest of the world cuts us off, we will be screwed. The decision then will be either 1) continue to spend money on the military but at a reduced rate, OR, 2) continue to make social security, medicare, and welfare payments but at a reduced rate. In a panic situation, which one do you think the American people will chose? Do the math. There are 1 million people in the military. There are 100 million people receiving checks from the government. The other choice is to hyperinflate, but that only puts off this decision and makes everything far worse. What Schiff is trying to do is substantially cut government spending so that the impact of the day of reckoning is minimized. Simmons is a probably a good party man. He will probably support a spending freeze in a lot of departments. But that isn't going to cut it. Entire departments need to have their budgets eliminated or slashed. I believe Schiff will vote to do that. The impact of military withdrawal will be far worse than any hypothetical, possible, 'has been 'coming now' for the past 20 years' economic collapse. We can't afford NOT to be out there - our national strength is the underpinning of our entire economy... Sorry, but no-go for 'bring the troops home'... I would have to agree. I supported Rob Simmons as he was my Congressman for District 2. I still support him for Senate. I am willing to give others a chance but if Schiff's policy is for a full withdrawl of projected force then I can not support that. I will have to admit I agree with Dave_A on a few things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 5:43:35 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
1) The borders have been 'open' since 1776... Immigration law may have changed, but we have NEVER made a serious effort to do the impossible, i.e. physically secure the Mexican or Canadian border.. 2) 'Doubling the debt'? So? 3) 'Weakening the dollar'? Yeah, right, whatever... What did GDP do over the same period of time? 4) 'Spying on Americans without warrants?' Never happened... Liberal bullshit that 'mysteriously' stopped being a concern once Bush left office... The 'truth' is that we spied on foreigners, whcih is a normal activity for any nation state... 5) passing the Patriot Act? Another 'nothing wrong with that' situation... The entire 'but it erodes civil liberties' line was pure crap, a lie told to disparage the prior administration... Once again, the 'threat to civil liberties' was immagined, and magically went away on 20/Jan/09.... 6) He predicted the dot-com bubble in the late 90s. As did anyone with half a brain... 7) Then, he goes on to 'predict' everything completely wrong: (A) Gold going to $2000/oz... Shortly after he said this, it dropped to $800/oz or so from a 'peak' in the 1100s... (B) Oil going over $200/bbl... Oops... Try $60 8) A world-wide 'decoupling' from the USD... Not only is this not happening, it can't happen unless the rest of the world wants to commit economic suicide... The US 'owns' all the alternatives (such as the IMF)... The Chinese can't become the new 'reserve' themselves, either - as we will see if OUR recession keeps going much longer, their economy is headed down the tubes too, they are totally dependant on American/European consumption to 'stay afloat'.... 9) Inflation.... Schiff (as his hair-brained ideology demands) called for massive inflation. Instead, we are seeing a DEFLATIONARY recession.... . 1) No, Bush (like administrations before him) had better things to do like harass American citizens over nonsensical laws. BTW, Eisenhower did have a program that fixed the problem for awhile. 2) Debt is bad unless you borrow to make capital investments. We blew the money on consumer goods. At it will all have to be repaid with interest. Unfortunately, we have no means of repaying it except for the printing press because we don't make anything anymore. 3) GDP hasn't gone up as fast as debt. Anyway, GDP, like most other government numbers, is bogas. 4) By spying on "foreigners", do you mean US soldiers serving overseas? I guess you don't count them as "Americans". Why don't you support the troops? Report: Feds eavesdropped on soldiers' calls 5) Yeah, the democrats aren't complaining anymore now that they are in power. And our civil liberties continue to be eroded. 6) Wrong again. Bush and the democrats were encouraging people to take on more debt and buy houses. They even spent our money to subsidize this. Schiff was one of the few pundits that predicted it. In fact, many of the "experts" literally laughed in his face when he predicted the housing bubble several years ago. There are many clips of this on youtube. 7) Gold is over $1000 and oil is over $70 now. I have little doubt that they will go to $2000 and $200 respectively. Schiff has never claimed to be a market timer. But he understands the fundamentals better than most. 8) That is total nonsense, Dave. The rest of the world needs us to consume? Nonsense. Here is an analogy. A man has a good job and works hard. He marries a woman that is attractive at first and also has a good job. She then quits her job, stops putting out, gains 300 pounds, and watches TV all day. But she tells her friends that her husband is lucky to have her to consume things, otherwise he would be destitute. Arrogant bullshit. 9) It will be deflationary relative to gold. If you think it will be deflationary with the respect to the dollar, then good luck. You're going to need it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 5:49:39 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't Simmons have a very solid gun rights record from his time in the US House? Rob Simmons was "A" rated by the NRA. He is a friend to gun owners. Didn't they give Kristen Gillibrand an "A" rating too? We had all these "A" rated NRA guys running Congress from 2000 to 2006, and an "A" guy in the white house, yet they did little for gun owners. Long term, they were disastrous for the 2nd amendment due to their open borders policies and expansion of the surveillance and police state. BTW, isn't it ironic that a democratic president, democratic house, and democratic senate has done more for gunowners in 8 months than Bush did in 8 years? But like the Republicans, long term, the democrats are also a disaster for the 2nd amendment for the same reason mainstream republicans are. Based on what you and other have written here, I'm sure Simmons will probably vote to support the 2nd amendment. But don't expect him to vote to defund the ATF or dismantle the surveillance state. He seems like a good party man that won't rock the boat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 5:54:44 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
We can't afford NOT to be out there - our national strength is the underpinning of our entire economy... As usual, you have it backwards. It was our economy that allowed us to build up a strong military. We had lots of factories for making stuff, lots of people that knew how to run them, and a lot of smart scientists. And we have an efficient and relatively free economy/ Today, we don't have factories, don't produce anything, and are graduating a bunch of lawyers and people with bullshit degrees who leave school $100,000 in debt. As our economy crumbles, eventually our military will. It takes time. Peter Schiff is running to attempt to fix our economy. Long term, this will allow us to have a stronger military. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 6:02:59 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
The impact of military withdrawal will be far worse than any hypothetical, possible, 'has been 'coming now' for the past 20 years' economic collapse. We can't afford NOT to be out there - our national strength is the underpinning of our entire economy... Sorry, but no-go for 'bring the troops home'... Really? How will military withdrawal be worse than an economic collapse? How does not being in Iraq or Afghanistan affect our national strength? We are only strong if we are there? I'm pretty sure the drunken sailor spending habits of GW and the socialist policies of B. Hussein, combined, are going to weaken our national strength AND keep us circling the drain economically for years to come. Hopefully, a leader will emerge articulate enough to lead this nation back to some resemblance of conservatism. Statist "yes men" aren't going to get the job done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 6:18:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is another Republican, Rob Simmons, who is also running for the Republican nomination for the 2010 senate race. He is already polling better than Chris Dodd, and is a lot better known than Schiff. It would be better for us to back him than Schiff. By "us", do you mean the Republican Party establishment that gave us massive deficits, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, open borders, wireless wiretapping, a housing bubble and a weak dollar? (Which is not to say that they didn't have help from the democrats). Screw them. I don't care about the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. They can both go to hell. The Republicans talk a good game when they are out of power, but when they get in power, they demonstrate their big-government statist tendencies. The last thing we need is another milquetoast Republican who is a good party yes-man who toes the line. So Simmons has better name recognition and is polling better more than a year away from the election. Big deal. That means nothing, especially in a race where the incumbent (Dodd) is in trouble. That was the same argument that was made to con people into supporting Bob Dole and George Bush. And they were a disaster for country. And for the Republican Party which many here care so deeply for. How about this for a novel concept: let's support the best man or woman for the office and support them for a change. Peter Schiff is clearly the best candidate for the job. He is an honest, intelligent man, who is not a politician. He supports fiscal restraint, a strong currency, and individual rights. He is an excellent debater and very quick on his feet. He's a fool on all things economics, who constantly bets against the US based on a twisted & absurd moralization of economic concepts... Are you saying you have a better grasp on economics than Peter Schiff? Most people have a better grasp of macro economics than Peter Schiff or Ron Paul... It doesn't take much... Note that ECONOMICS is not INVESTING.... If you're a believer in the 'Cult of Gold', your knowledge of economics is terminally damaged.... Hey Dave,  Can you tell me who is in possession of the largest reserves of gold and why?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 6:37:23 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: 1) The borders have been 'open' since 1776... Immigration law may have changed, but we have NEVER made a serious effort to do the impossible, i.e. physically secure the Mexican or Canadian border.. 2) 'Doubling the debt'? So? 3) 'Weakening the dollar'? Yeah, right, whatever... What did GDP do over the same period of time? 4) 'Spying on Americans without warrants?' Never happened... Liberal bullshit that 'mysteriously' stopped being a concern once Bush left office... The 'truth' is that we spied on foreigners, whcih is a normal activity for any nation state... 5) passing the Patriot Act? Another 'nothing wrong with that' situation... The entire 'but it erodes civil liberties' line was pure crap, a lie told to disparage the prior administration... Once again, the 'threat to civil liberties' was immagined, and magically went away on 20/Jan/09.... 6) He predicted the dot-com bubble in the late 90s. As did anyone with half a brain... 7) Then, he goes on to 'predict' everything completely wrong: (A) Gold going to $2000/oz... Shortly after he said this, it dropped to $800/oz or so from a 'peak' in the 1100s... (B) Oil going over $200/bbl... Oops... Try $60 8) A world-wide 'decoupling' from the USD... Not only is this not happening, it can't happen unless the rest of the world wants to commit economic suicide... The US 'owns' all the alternatives (such as the IMF)... The Chinese can't become the new 'reserve' themselves, either - as we will see if OUR recession keeps going much longer, their economy is headed down the tubes too, they are totally dependant on American/European consumption to 'stay afloat'.... 9) Inflation.... Schiff (as his hair-brained ideology demands) called for massive inflation. Instead, we are seeing a DEFLATIONARY recession.... . 1) No, Bush (like administrations before him) had better things to do like harass American citizens over nonsensical laws. BTW, Eisenhower did have a program that fixed the problem for awhile. 'Operatuin W* did not 'fix' anything... And illegal immigration is about a good bit more than 'mexicans'... 2) Debt is bad unless you borrow to make capital investments. We blew the money on consumer goods. At it will all have to be repaid with interest. Unfortunately, we have no means of repaying it except for the printing press because we don't make anything anymore. The 'we don't make anything anymore' line is BS... There is no superiority in selling manufactured goods vs selling ideas, services, or any of the stuff that still IS manufactured here... Making pliers, bedpans, and dishware is a job for 3rd-world peasants with a 5th grade education... Not Americans... 3) GDP hasn't gone up as fast as debt. Anyway, GDP, like most other government numbers, is bogas. That's an excuse you can always fall back on 'But the govt numbers are forged'... 4) By spying on "foreigners", do you mean US soldiers serving overseas? I guess you don't count them as "Americans". Why don't you support the troops? Report: Feds eavesdropped on soldiers' calls I was ONE OF those troops... Here's a hint: There are NO private telephones over there... None... Never have been... Everything either (A) goes over the DoD network, or (B) goes over local (hadjinet) providers... DoD monitors ALL communications over their voice and data channels, they are very, very clear about this... Monitoring is done for OPSEC and counter-intelegence reasons.... Common sense... Being in an active war zone, communications security is more important than personal privacy.... And as for HadjiNet... That being tapped should be common fucking sense - seeing as how we're fighting a war and the enemy uses those same lines of communication...  5) Yeah, the democrats aren't complaining anymore now that they are in power. And our civil liberties continue to be eroded. They never were eroded in the first place... You got snowed... 6) Wrong again. Bush and the democrats were encouraging people to take on more debt and buy houses. They even spent our money to subsidize this. Schiff was one of the few pundits that predicted it. In fact, many of the "experts" literally laughed in his face when he predicted the housing bubble several years ago. There are many clips of this on youtube. They laughed in his face because of the other shit he was shoveling... Hell, I predicted that 'housing was a bubble' back in 2006... Does that make me qualified to be a Senator? No... 7) Gold is over $1000 and oil is over $70 now. I have little doubt that they will go to $2000 and $200 respectively. Schiff has never claimed to be a market timer. But he understands the fundamentals better than most. Sure, if you run things out for a few decades, it might be possible... But ole Schiff was speaking about the current recession... He doesn't understand shit when it comes to fundimentals, or he wouldn't be talking about inflation during a deflationary recession 8) That is total nonsense, Dave. The rest of the world needs us to consume? Nonsense. Here is an analogy. A man has a good job and works hard. He marries a woman that is attractive at first and also has a good job. She then quits her job, stops putting out, gains 300 pounds, and watches TV all day. But she tells her friends that her husband is lucky to have her to consume things, otherwise he would be destitute. Arrogant bullshit. That shows how much you know about economics... All economic activity starts with customers... No customers, no sales, no production... The Chinese can't make money manufacturing shit if (A) no one hires them to do it, and (B) no one can buy their products... Without the US & Europe's consumption, they would have no one to sell to - the 3rd world is too poor... Including most of the Chinese themselves... 9) It will be deflationary relative to gold. If you think it will be deflationary with the respect to the dollar, then good luck. You're going to need it. Deflationary relative to the USD is where we are headed... Gold bugs are the only ones too blinded by ideology to see this... No one uses gold as a measure of inflation/deflation... And if we keep going where we are, the price of gold is headed down, not up - right now it's a bubble supported buy irrational faith in the 'myth of intrinsic value'.... The present level of 'demand' is being artificially inflated by purchases from folks who buy the hype about gold being 'safe' - that's not a sustainable market price, that's an inflated price that will fall as soon as (a) recovery starts, or (b) the buyers realize they bought an inflationary hedge in a deflationary market... The fact is, that the banking situation has been destroying dollars almost as fast (in some cases faster) than the Fed can replace them... Dollar deflation is the #1 issue at hand... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 6:45:20 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: The impact of military withdrawal will be far worse than any hypothetical, possible, 'has been 'coming now' for the past 20 years' economic collapse. We can't afford NOT to be out there - our national strength is the underpinning of our entire economy... Sorry, but no-go for 'bring the troops home'... Really? How will military withdrawal be worse than an economic collapse? How does not being in Iraq or Afghanistan affect our national strength? We are only strong if we are there? I'm pretty sure the drunken sailor spending habits of GW and the socialist policies of B. Hussein, combined, are going to weaken our national strength AND keep us circling the drain economically for years to come. Hopefully, a leader will emerge articulate enough to lead this nation back to some resemblance of conservatism. Statist "yes men" aren't going to get the job done. Conservatisim is not about 'not spending'... The underpinning of the US economy, is the USD's status as world reserve currency... The USD got that status not because 'we made stuff', but because of our political and military power, and the stability of our government... An America that looks weak, that cuts and runs from 2 minor regional conflicts under the 'excuse' that it costs too much money, is NOT a nation that will continue to lead the world... If we lose that position, our economy and our way of life becomes unsustainable... We have to finish these wars... Period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 6:47:42 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: We can't afford NOT to be out there - our national strength is the underpinning of our entire economy... As usual, you have it backwards. It was our economy that allowed us to build up a strong military. We had lots of factories for making stuff, lots of people that knew how to run them, and a lot of smart scientists. And we have an efficient and relatively free economy/ Today, we don't have factories, don't produce anything, and are graduating a bunch of lawyers and people with bullshit degrees who leave school $100,000 in debt. As our economy crumbles, eventually our military will. It takes time. Peter Schiff is running to attempt to fix our economy. Long term, this will allow us to have a stronger military. All horseshit... 1) There are 3 nations in the world with 'sucessful' heavy arms manufacturing: The US, China, and Russia... If you group all of Europe together, you MIGHT be able to call that a 4th... 2) We produce more than any other country in the world... 3) Peter Schiff & those who think like him can only hurt the US economy, not help it... 4) Our military power only really 'developed' when we gave up the isolationist horseshit that folks like Schiff see us returning to, and started expanding out into the wider world... Further, the era of manufacturing as a form of military power is over - weapons are simply too destructive to adopt a 'build it faster than they can blow it up, have babies faster than they can kill our troops' mentality.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 6:49:58 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Doesn't Simmons have a very solid gun rights record from his time in the US House? Rob Simmons was "A" rated by the NRA. He is a friend to gun owners. Didn't they give Kristen Gillibrand an "A" rating too? We had all these "A" rated NRA guys running Congress from 2000 to 2006, and an "A" guy in the white house, yet they did little for gun owners. Long term, they were disastrous for the 2nd amendment due to their open borders policies and expansion of the surveillance and police state. BTW, isn't it ironic that a democratic president, democratic house, and democratic senate has done more for gunowners in 8 months than Bush did in 8 years? But like the Republicans, long term, the democrats are also a disaster for the 2nd amendment for the same reason mainstream republicans are. Based on what you and other have written here, I'm sure Simmons will probably vote to support the 2nd amendment. But don't expect him to vote to defund the ATF or dismantle the surveillance state. He seems like a good party man that won't rock the boat. Someone is forgetting PLCA and the end of the AWB... Also, the 'carry in national parks' thing originated under Bush, but was blocked under Obama... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:06:33 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Someone is forgetting PLCA and the end of the AWB... Also, the 'carry in national parks' thing originated under Bush, but was blocked under Obama... The AWB that Bush said he would sign if Congress sent it to him? The "no carry in national parks" originated with Reagan in the 80s. Bush spent 7+ years of his presidency leaving it in place. They finally submitted the rule change. It was a crappy rule and many pro-RKBA groups were quite unhappy with it. A federal judge later overturned the rule. The democratic congress attached it to the credit card reform bill. Most of the republicians voted for it. About half the democrats did. It would have been nice if the republican congress did this 15 years ago, but I guess that had better things to do. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
