Iran sentences American man to death in CIA case
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120109/D9S5BOA00.html
Furor in Greece over pedophilia as a disability
WTF?
My FB friend Steve posted this:
"Whoa! There is a former Federal Reserve Economist (David Barker) on Dylan Ratigan's show on MSNBC (on MSNBC?!?) talking about his book called 'Welcome to Free America', in which he argues for an *absolutely privatized* system/society (roads, education, security, defense, courts, insurance, etc) that would absolutely replace every aspect of the government. He is very well spoken and knows his stuff. He sounds like a fellow *solid* AnCap, perhaps of the Friedmanite (David) consequentialist type (although clearly influenced by Rothbard as well). Ratigan treated him with respect and sounded intrigued by his book and such ideas. Very nice. Won't be anything new for me I'm sure, but I will definitely buy/read this book regardless."
http://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Free-America-David-Barker/dp/1105027791/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326145951&sr=8-1
Did anyone else catch this by any chance?
1. Former Federal Reserve economist
2. On TV (MSNBC)
3. Promoting THAT
I would love to see a tube of this.
That's insane
How the hell did you get and read a copy so fast?
Hey Wesker,
I found this video: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1315263549001 .
Google does find a url for the show you mentioned ( http://www.dylanratigan.com/2012/01/09/show-guests-for-january-9-2012/ ), but when you go there it's not there anymore.
Copy was instantly sent to my Kindle. It was only a little over 100 pages.
Thanks for finding that video, Nielsio. It is still interesting to see this being discussed in the mainstream even though I didn't like the book.
And somehow, I'm sure the mainstream media won't care.
What Rick Santorum Doesn’t Know About Sex
Raising the Debt Limit
^ Just to let ya know
Thanks Heather!
get it, girl
The finance plumber "Super" Mario will think about it ;)
Prof. Dr. Mario Draghi at the IX. Ludwig-Erhard-Lecture in Berlin, Germany - 12/15/2011. Q: I'm going to ask my question in German: My name ist Ralph Bärligea and I'm the chairman of the "Hayek Circle" at the University of Passau. We all know that the financial crisis was mainly caused by central banks due to too low interest rates - the mortgage crisis in the US but the sovereign debt crisis was caused by too low interest rates as well, by the the fact that the ECB accepted the deposition of government bonds and by granting loans to banks without demanding any equity capital as collateral. How would you as a representative of a central bank assess the idea of the abolition of the monopoly on money creation and the support of a development towards a market-based monetary system in which every investor is liable for his own decisions? When you as a lender of last resort grant loans, you are in fact also making an investment but there's no investor who is liable for this kind of investments. In addition to that, it is questionable in my opinion that you as a central instance can possess the same amount of knowledge as many decentralized investors. A: Let me say just one thing about the crisis: I think the monetary policy was one circumstantial additional element to creating an environment where a crisis could actually erupt as it finally eventually did. But I think that real root of the crisis has to be found in the several serious regulatory flaws in one financial jurisdiction. I think these regulatory jurisdiction flaws are not a one of event. It had been flaws, it had been created throughout several years starting more or less with 2000/2002/2003 onward until the crisis. And this environment has created a situation where you had assets which were impossible to price correctly because they were opaque. You had a weakening of the regulatory controls of all kinds - without going into too much detail. And around this you had an abundance of liquidity coming from monetary policy, but also coming from what was called the savings glut. In other words: money flowing into the capital markets from the Asian countries and other emerging market countries. And so again we had a situation which is in a sense similar to what I have described before for government bonds. We had risk premia that were not reflecting the inner riskiness of the assets. In this environment you also had excessive and misperceived leverage - that is to say: debt. In this environment of lacking transparency, very low interests rates, perverse incentives into action, you also had, you obviously had the actors raising too much debt and not even understanding how high was there debt often, because it was concealed by the very opacity of the instruments they were using to raise money. So, that's to give a overall fair picture of the background of which the crisis had erupted. But, the next step is to say how would be a world without central banks? I don't know. Frankly, you see, that's one of the things which one like me should ask. Because we tend to, sort of, work so much into our own nest that we often avoid the big questions like: How would the world be if I didn't exist? And I promise I'll reflect on this!
Dear Americans, We Are Surrounded
@John, why was she even asking that question? A person who would decide their vote on whether or not they were able to shake hands with a politician is a vapid loser. Good riddance, I wouldn't want that person supporting the Paul campaign anyway.
@JJ: What are we, in grade school? Ron Paul is supposed to be Santa Claus and fly around the whole country with flying reindeer, shaking each and every prospective voter's hand??
Clayton -
Exactly. That's why I love Benton getting in there and calling it straight.
Seriously you know they're trying hard when that actually serves as a question on national news.
How was RP supposed to know that she was there? She should have gotten a bullhorn like that one guy who kept making annoying remarks. Or... or... or... she could have gotten ahold of one of his staffers and told the staffer about her situation.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
FYI the "guy with the bullhorn making annoying remarks" is actually Vermin Supreme. He's basically been running more or less fake campaigns for public office for years now. My understanding is he's an anarchist and does so to basically lampoon the electoral process and democracy in general. Typically he's running on a platform that includes making brushing your teeth mandatory, and promising everyone a pony if elected:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme
I wouldn't exactly call him a friend of the cause, but we do share some ends, ha. I have no idea if he's aware of Paul's positions or anarchist leanings or not. That probably wouldn't make a difference. :-P
You mean THIS guy?
Oh, man, the tooth puns are insane.
...aaaand of course CNN cuts it off.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the "perfect face for radio" woman's personal fears...
Why Smear Campaigns Work
Ron Paul Looks Good. The image reminds me of Tom Cruise from Top Gun.
This is a pretty cool interactive map. Good place when you want the numbers...
The Dollar’s Lucky Streak
I've started seeing this in social media:
R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]UTION!
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
oh, and militarist Romney:
http://imgur.com/4uSV9
The Dana Bash thing is being misinterpreted. She may or may not "be worried" about Ron Paul, but when she said that, she meant she is talking to disgruntled Republicans like John King is.
Actually, it's so painfully obvious that this is what she meant that I'm upset that RevolutionPAC is calling for her to get fired over this.
"I'm sure you've talked to Republicans who are worried as well, just like I am...."
This was on live TV, so it's easy to misplace a clause in a running sentence. She went from past tense to present tense, hence the confusion. "Just like I am" = I'm talking to worried Republicans as I'm sure John King has previously.
Eric080:The Dana Bash thing is being misinterpreted. She may or may not "be worried" about Ron Paul, but when she said that, she meant she is talking to disgruntled Republicans like John King is. [...] "I'm sure you've talked to Republicans who are worried as well, just like I am...." This was on live TV, so it's easy to misplace a clause in a running sentence. She went from past tense to present tense, hence the confusion. "Just like I am" = I'm talking to worried Republicans as I'm sure John King has previously.
Possibly. But at least with that second post you are now admitting what she said does mean she is giving a personal sentiment. I realize you're alleging she made a mistake in her language didn't mean it the way she said, but that is quite different than claiming other people are just interpreting what she said incorrectly. It's not their fault she said something she didn't mean, and they believed her.
Actually, it's so painfully obvious that this is what she meant
Maybe to you. I didn't hear it that way. Now that you mention it, I agree it's possible she made a mistake and didn't mean what she actually said, but it again, that was her mistake...not everyone elses. And it certainly wasn't "painfully obvious". I'm not a big fan of this "oh she couldn't have possibly meant that...let me sit down and try to figure out what she really meant" bs. I tend to agree more with this.
that I'm upset that RevolutionPAC is calling for her to get fired over this.
Did you even follow the link? They're asking her to be reassigned. That is hardly "fired".
I'm with Eric on this... except that I don't agree it's painfully obvious... I didn't get it until you explained it. But now that it's explained to me, I see how she must have meant that because it's inconceivable that a reporter in her position would do something so obviously stupid (and costly) as disclose her ideological horse in the race.
I understand why the Ron Paul campaign is a bit touchy about the media because they really are rolling out the dirty tricks. I saw the footage of that restaurant and it was absurd, you couldn't even walk down the aisles between tables because people were packed in so tight. Someone in the media decided that they should "crash" the party with the express intent of getting RP to walk out and then asking him bullshit "follow-up" questions later on about why he didn't shake one solitary voter's hand.
Nevertheless, they also need to step up to the plate and realize that these kinds of dirty tricks are par for the course. There's nothing civilized about politics and they better get ready for things to get a lot dirtier and a lot more low-down, particularly if RP starts to become the un-Romney.
Fair enough. The title is "Ron Paul Super PAC Calls for Removal of Dana Bash." I skim-read it and missed the quote where they want her reassigned (this is only mentioned once in the post; I understood "removal" as "fired"). I wouldn't blame anyone for backtracking when they hear this the first time, but upon analysis, I believe it was painfully obvious what she meant.
I think the MSM's animosity against RP is actually helping him. While the MSM highlights Romney's, Perry's, and Gingrich's childish flubs so as to make those candidates lovable, the younger "populace" hates the MSM and will side with the candidate that is calling the MSM's bluffs and putting them in their place.
There is a bit of blowback going on (if you'll pardon the pun). Usually when the forces that are seen as being corrupt (the corporate media, big business, rival politicians, hack pundits, etc.) all start to rail against one candidate, the educated out there begin to see that maybe there is something to this candidate. If Rush Limbaugh, CNN, The Young Turks (regardless of Cenk's recent semi-defenses), Fox News, Newt Gingrich, and Rachel Maddow all start hating on you, something must be going right.
Eric080:Fair enough. The title is "Ron Paul Super PAC Calls for Removal of Dana Bash." I skim-read it and missed the quote where they want her reassigned (this is only mentioned once in the post; I understood "removal" as "fired"). I wouldn't blame anyone for backtracking when they hear this the first time, but upon analysis, I believe it was painfully obvious what she meant.
I'd be willing to bet money you found that RevPAC blog entry by clicking the annotation link in the video...the one that explicitly says (in English plainer than you allege Bash used) "Click here to contact CNN to request Dana Bash's reassignment."
I don't know how you get much more clear than that. (Especially when it is "painfully obvious" to you that someone means something completely different than what they actually say. Or perhaps your ability to understand things to mean the opposite is working against you here?)
Eric080:There is a bit of blowback going on (if you'll pardon the pun). Usually when the forces that are seen as being corrupt (the corporate media, big business, rival politicians, hack pundits, etc.) all start to rail against one candidate, the educated out there begin to see that maybe there is something to this candidate. If Rush Limbaugh, CNN, The Young Turks (regardless of Cenk's recent semi-defenses), Fox News, Newt Gingrich, and Rachel Maddow all start hating on you, something must be going right.
Important part in bold. You may overestimate the number of those people, as well as the time it takes for even the lower end among that upper echelon to get to that point.
Eric080:There is a bit of blowback going on (if you'll pardon the pun). Usually when the forces that are seen as being corrupt (the corporate media, big business, rival politicians, hack pundits, etc.) all start to rail against one candidate, the educated out there who don't have skin in the status-quo game begin to see that maybe there is something to this candidate. If Rush Limbaugh, CNN, The Young Turks (regardless of Cenk's recent semi-defenses), Fox News, Newt Gingrich, and Rachel Maddow all start hating on you, something must be going right.
FTFY
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I tend to not glance at annotations, so I completely did not notice that until you mentioned it!