Damn Progressives.

Ron Paul is our lord and savior.

(guffaw)

And if the world would have listened to WIlson, WWII probably would not have happened.

Woodrow Wilson did give a private bank the ability to print money... So yeah I kinda have to agree with him on that...

hdhale: Damn Progressives.

I would suggest you read up on Woodrow, in particular is contribution to setting back civil rights for blah people.

He went on to rant about the Spanish in Cuba.

Woodrow Wilson was a racist xenophobic and is easily one of the worst presidents we've seen in this country.

As a conservative Independent, here is some free advice for the Republican party. Shut your STUPID mouths! You are losing the election without even running against Obama.

Paul has been especially outspoken about the Federal Reserve, which he blamed for having a hand in the boom and bust cycle since its founding in 1913 in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Yeah, because the United States never experienced depressions before 1913.

Dumbass.

Woodrow Wilson the guy who got lower tariffs passed, graduated the income tax, passed anti-trust legislation, passed child labor laws, and created Ron Paul's arch nemesis The Federal Reserve.

FTFA:

According to the White House webpage on Wilson, the 28th president enacted a number of pieces of domestic legislation that the libertarian Paul finds irksome. These included a federal income tax and the establishment of a Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve.

Funny how this supposed strict Constitutionalist always wants to pretend the parts of the document he dislikes don't exist. Behold, the 16th amendment!

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Oh and the Fed? Created because people were getting away with shenanigans on Wall Street - namely, gambling to corner the market on copper. The US govt was unable to shore up the money supply and there was no agency to make sure Wall Street played fair. Hence the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve Acts.

But I'm sure this thread will be full of rational discussion of how, left to its own devices and without government oversight, the free market will correct itself and nobody will get f*cked over for something so myopic and stupid as cornering the market on a commodity during a market downturn.

Of course the fed has a hand in the boom/bust cycle of the economy that is kinda its point it moderates it. Its been around so long that people have forgotten what real boom/bust cycles were before it.

maudibjr: Its been around so long that people have forgotten what real boom/bust cycles were before it.

Hint: They didn't give them nice sounding names like "recession" or "downturns". They were called "panics".

MasterThief: /There are only two Presidents whose graves I would proudly piss on. Wilson is one of them. The other is Richard Nixon.

I'd piss on Jackson's grave before Wilson.

/And maybe Cleveland, non-consecutively.

MasterThief: From here: (new window)

Wilson has always drawn the ire of libertarians. Among the many reasons why:

* He dishonestly led us into a pointless, costly, destructive war, and assumed control over huge sectors of the economy to wage it. He seized railroads, food and energy production, and implemented price controls.

* He suppressed dissent and imprisoned war critics. Said Wilson, "Conformity will be the only virtue. And every man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty." He signed the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the latter of which made it a criminal offense to "oppose the cause of the United States." He retaliated against critical newspapers, and directed the U.S. Postal Service to stop delivering mail determined to be critical of the war effort.

* Wilson not only continued existing racial segregation of federal government workers, he extended it.

* He instituted the first military draft since the Civil War.

* He signed the first federal drug prohibition.

* He reinstituted the federal income tax.

* Wilson believed in an activist, imperialist presidency. In his 1909 book Constitutional Government, he made the case against checks and balances and the separation of powers. The government, Wilson argued, is a living organism, and "no living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks, and live."

* He ordered unconstitutional, unilateral military interventions into Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Mexico. (He also oversaw military interventions in Panama and Cuba, and instituted American-favored dictators throughout Latin America.)

* Wilson believed God ordained him to be president, and acted accordingly, boasting to one friend in 1913 that "I have been smashing precedents almost daily every since I got here." Every president since Jefferson had given the State of the Union in writing. Wilson reinstituted what Jefferson derided as the "speech from the Throne," and ordered Congress assembled to hear him speak, giving rise to the emb ...

What, you can't muster up any ire for Buchanan, Garfield, or Roosevelt the Lesser?

I don't understand the libertarian movement. They don't seem to think things through very far. The system they want is just the old tooth and claw system that will lead once again to warlords and kings. WTF is 'liber' about that?

If you don't have any government what would happen? Sneaky, crazy lunatics would slowly accumulate power through terror and greed and crush decent people trying to have a nice life (again).

Go back under your rocks.

VOTE RON PAUL

MasterThief: From here: (new window)

Wilson has always drawn the ire of libertarians. Among the many reasons why:

* He dishonestly led us into a pointless, costly, destructive war, and assumed control over huge sectors of the economy to wage it. He seized railroads, food and energy production, and implemented price controls.

* He suppressed dissent and imprisoned war critics. Said Wilson, "Conformity will be the only virtue. And every man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty." He signed the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the latter of which made it a criminal offense to "oppose the cause of the United States." He retaliated against critical newspapers, and directed the U.S. Postal Service to stop delivering mail determined to be critical of the war effort.

* Wilson not only continued existing racial segregation of federal government workers, he extended it.

* He instituted the first military draft since the Civil War.

* He signed the first federal drug prohibition.

* He reinstituted the federal income tax.

* Wilson believed in an activist, imperialist presidency. In his 1909 book Constitutional Government, he made the case against checks and balances and the separation of powers. The government, Wilson argued, is a living organism, and "no living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks, and live."

* He ordered unconstitutional, unilateral military interventions into Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Mexico. (He also oversaw military interventions in Panama and Cuba, and instituted American-favored dictators throughout Latin America.)

* Wilson believed God ordained him to be president, and acted accordingly, boasting to one friend in 1913 that "I have been smashing precedents almost daily every since I got here." Every president since Jefferson had given the State of the Union in writing. Wilson reinstituted what Jefferson derided as the "speech from the Throne," and ordered Congress assembled to hear him speak, giving rise to the emb ...

Let me know when the Libertarians plan on putting up a good candidate against Wilson.

hitlersbrain: I don't understand the libertarian movement. They don't seem to think things through very far. The system they want is just the old tooth and claw system that will lead once again to warlords and kings. WTF is 'liber' about that?

If you don't have any government what would happen? Sneaky, crazy lunatics would slowly accumulate power through terror and greed and crush decent people trying to have a nice life (again).

Go back under your rocks.

Libertarians either believe that they would be or would be favored by those who naturally gain power, thus ensuring them a "nice Life" without the guilt they currently feel; or, they just bought into the idea that more money makes you a better person. I don't really know.

maudibjr: Of course the fed has a hand in the boom/bust cycle of the economy that is kinda its point it moderates it. Its been around so long that people have forgotten what real boom/bust cycles were before it.

Yes, but before the Federal Reserve, the busts only lasted 6 months. The fed somewhat reduced the frequency of busts, but now they last two years. Less than 20 years after the Fed was created, we got the Great Depression. That alone should have been enough evidence that the Fed was making things worse, not better.

MasterThief: From here: (new window)

* Wilson believed in an activist, imperialist presidency. In his 1909 book Constitutional Government, he made the case against checks and balances and the separation of powers. The government, Wilson argued, is a living organism, and "no living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks, and live."


Huh, I always thought that the current trend of nearly every politician under the Sun ( this seems to be a more Republican thing, although Democrats have many examples) writing a book about there 'beliefs" and "experiences" was modern money-grubbing phenomenon. Seriously why does anyone buy those crappy books?

Anyone else notice that under the heading "What Ron Paul Means by Fascism" the author gives NO indication of what RP means by fascism?

relhak: before the Federal Reserve, the busts only lasted 6 months.

try 20 years.

hitlersbrain: I don't understand the libertarian movement. ...
If you don't have any government what would happen?

Sigh - your own very true words. Anarchism isn't libertarian - Libertarian governments make a priority of defending your rights including your property rights, and your freedom to negotiate the most prosperous career you can through the economy. Of course that requires a muscular system of laws and courts that can deliver swift justice against those who seek short cuts of taking things away from their rightful owners, and especially against human traffickers.

The current U.S environment means you hear libertarians speak out for rolling back excesses like the TSA, "civil asset forfeiture", P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, drug prohibition, business subsidies and taxation of income, that invite comparisons to anarchism. Unfortunate, but it goes with the territory.

I think James A. Garfield was far worse.

phlegmmo: whom

Came to say this. Thanks.

FTA: "He made the case that to some degree, each of these ideologies promoted the primacy of the state over that of the individual. Goldberg suggested, as the cover of his book indicates, that modern liberalism is nothing but fascism with a smiley face."

What is it with nuts on the right and Woodrow Wilson? Beck (who may have raped and killed a girl in 1990) also had a hard-on for talking smack about a man who has been dead for almost a century. Is it because his wife essentially was President after he had a stroke in 1921? Edith Bolling Wilson did essentially run the country. And we all know how much the extreme right hates women.

How about the next target is Rutherford B. Hayes "He who serves his party best, serves his country best".

Then again, Hayes just may be an idol to these morons.

Looks like I'm voting for the Brian Slug party again.

Reminds me of:

I heard Woodrow Wilson's guns
I heard Maria crying
Late last night I heard the news
That Veracruz was dying
Veracruz was dying

-- Warren Zevon

Forgot_my_password_again: hdhale: Damn Progressives.

I would suggest you read up on Woodrow, in particular is contribution to setting back civil rights for blah people.

Those were the folks who called themselves "progressives" in the day. They brought us prohibition, eugenics, and all sorts of "great" progress. But this time it's different, right?

Forgot_my_password_again: hdhale: Damn Progressives.

I would suggest you read up on Woodrow, in particular is contribution to setting back civil rights for blah people.

I suggest you look up the 20th century definition of the term "Progressive" and read up more on the attitudes toward race held by people in the U.S. in the early 20th century. For example, having a "Whites only" water fountain wasn't seen as particularly racist in most of the country (not just in the South) especially if there was a perfectly acceptable "Negroes only" water fountain near by. What's acceptable through 2012 eyes and what was acceptable through 1912 eyes are simply different.

D- for you today in American History. Do better.

syberpud: Forgot_my_password_again: hdhale: Damn Progressives.

I would suggest you read up on Woodrow, in particular is contribution to setting back civil rights for blah people.

Those were the folks who called themselves "progressives" in the day. They brought us prohibition, eugenics, and all sorts of "great" progress. But this time it's different, right?

Actually prohibition was more like the MADD of its day. Angry fundies out to prevent others from having a good time. Know why American troops in the First World War couldn't get an issue beer? Nutty Temperance movements and willing Republican Congressmen.
Eugenics? Seriously?

You're so full of shiat you may need to call Roto-Rooter. Before spouting off, you may try reading first.

Ron Paul isn't crazy enough for me.

Forgot_my_password_again: hdhale: Damn Progressives.

I would suggest you read up on Woodrow, in particular is contribution to setting back civil rights for blah people.

We just found out Rick Santorum's (new window) FARK handle.

DECMATH: hitlersbrain: I don't understand the libertarian movement. ...
If you don't have any government what would happen?

Sigh - your own very true words. Anarchism isn't libertarian - Libertarian governments make a priority of defending your rights including your property rights, and your freedom to negotiate the most prosperous career you can through the economy. Of course that requires a muscular system of laws and courts that can deliver swift justice against those who seek short cuts of taking things away from their rightful owners, and especially against human traffickers.

The current U.S environment means you hear libertarians speak out for rolling back excesses like the TSA, "civil asset forfeiture", P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, drug prohibition, business subsidies and taxation of income, that invite comparisons to anarchism. Unfortunate, but it goes with the territory.

All I HEAR libertarians talking about is no regulations on mega corporations. Greed run rampant. What that Rand biatch talked about was a special class of people born to lord over us. A class of people who should be above all laws and notions of morality (kings and warlords).

I think you need to take another look at libertarianism, like most awful political entities it puts sweet stuff at the door then clubs you as you walk in. You are being bamboozled.

stuhayes2010: And if the world would have listened to WIlson, WWII probably would not have happened.

If he hadn't entered WWI, WWII might not have happened.

_{Granted, there was casus belli with the Zimmermann telegram -- what kind of moron would think that Mexico wanted their country invaded again? -- but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Wilson should have stayed out of it, and sat on the sidelines until Europe got tired of fighting.}

relcec: hdhale: Forgot_my_password_again: hdhale: Damn Progressives.

I would suggest you read up on Woodrow, in particular is contribution to setting back civil rights for blah people.

I suggest you look up the 20th century definition of the term "Progressive" and read up more on the attitudes toward race held by people in the U.S. in the early 20th century. For example, having a "Whites only" water fountain wasn't seen as particularly racist in most of the country (not just in the South) especially if there was a perfectly acceptable "Negroes only" water fountain near by. What's acceptable through 2012 eyes and what was acceptable through 1912 eyes are simply different.

D- for you today in American History. Do better.

he retarded civil rights progress, he didn't just say *meh, I won't upset the apple cart.* he instituted segregation into many federal agencies for the first time.
Contrast that with Teddy Roosevelt, who was president well before Wilson, who had already desegregated schools in NY upon taking office, invited blacks to dinner at he white house, an appointed blacks to federal positions. Wilson shifted civil rights into reverse. that's why many progressives know he's unsupportable.
you get an F in reading comprehension.

So? I mean, that's why we look up to Teddy and barely mention Wilson. The only people who mention, nigh, hammer Wilson are loons like RON PAUL and alleged rapists and murderers like Glen Beck.

Face it, RON PAUL is a nutter who utters one "common sense" thing but doesn't make public the 10 things that make him look like an old, out-of-touch, extreme right wing, racist, Ayn Rand reading old man. He'll never be president. He's lucky to have his Congressional Seat. The only reason semi-reasonable people even profess to follow the guy is that he pretends to be a viable third party contender. Problem is, he's a Republican and holds many of their beliefs. He just doesn't advertise the less-tasteful ones like Santorum.

Snarfangel: stuhayes2010: And if the world would have listened to WIlson, WWII probably would not have happened.

If he hadn't entered WWI, WWII might not have happened.

If he hadn't had a stroke during the Treaty of Versailles ratification, WWII might not have happened.

trotsky: syberpud: Forgot_my_password_again: hdhale: Damn Progressives.

I would suggest you read up on Woodrow, in particular is contribution to setting back civil rights for blah people.

Those were the folks who called themselves "progressives" in the day. They brought us prohibition, eugenics, and all sorts of "great" progress. But this time it's different, right?

Actually prohibition was more like the MADD of its day. Angry fundies out to prevent others from having a good time. Know why American troops in the First World War couldn't get an issue beer? Nutty Temperance movements and willing Republican Congressmen.
Eugenics? Seriously?

You're so full of shiat you may need to call Roto-Rooter. Before spouting off, you may try reading first.

I did - you try it too - it's fun!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2698847

"Eugenics gained much support from progressive reform thinkers, who sought to plan social development using expert knowledge in both the social and natural sciences"

My post was (off topic I admit) about how people who called themselves "Progressives" of that day actually brought more harm than good. People who think should look at the 'progress' people who call themselves "Progressives" are advocating.