WSJ: Ron Pauling the Federal Reserve

[Tyler_Durden]

This is what we have to make sure is NEVER allowed. They are trying to take credit away from Dr. Paul and give it to the other Candidates. This is why we always bring it back to the source by letting everyone know when the Media, the Talking Heads, and the Candidates are Ron Pauling.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wh...ks-on-the-fed-2012-01-23?reflink=MW_news_stmp

"Texas Gov. Rick Perry started the attacks off by threatening bodily harm to Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke and accusing him of treason.

Front-runner Mitt Romney has since said he would fire Bernanke. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich also said he would fire Bernanke and went further to propose a commission to examine returning the U.S. to the gold standard. And Texas Rep. Ron Paul has reveled in his unwavering stance of simply ending the Fed."

WSJ tries to give credit to everyone else, with a footnote mention of Ron Paul. Blasphemy......

 

[unknown]

I'll post some comments as soon as my account is "verified".

In the meantime, lets send the author a polite note:

[email protected]

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Ya, I started a thread on this a few days ago. Annoying isn't it?

 

[Tyler_Durden]

Ya, I started a thread on this a few days ago. Annoying isn't it?

Is this your video?

Very annoying, that's why Ron Pauling needs to be our vernacular equivalent to Tebowing....

 

[doctorfunk]

Before you get too crazy, remember Ron Paul is still a long shot at the nomination. I'm not counting him out, but there a lot of big hurdles for him. Some of his ideas becoming campaign promises from other candidates is not a bad thing. And if he gets the delegates to influence the platform, it's one less thing that he would need to argue for.

 

[Tyler_Durden]

Before you get too crazy, remember Ron Paul is still a long shot at the nomination. I'm not counting him out, but there a lot of big hurdles for him. Some of his ideas becoming campaign promises from other candidates is not a bad thing. And if he gets the delegates to influence the platform, it's one less thing that he would need to argue for.

Not getting crazy with it. Of course it's a victory in the revolution for his policy ideas to be shaping politics. The potential problem that WE have to look out for is when the talk and credit shifts away from Dr. Paul and the Establishment attempts to own the ideas as their own. The excerpt in the WSJ article appears to do just that......look for it to happen more and more.

 

[Varin]

Short term it is bad, they steal some support from Paul with an issue they want pursue. Long term it is good it gives legitimacy to the issue and future candidates who really means it have greater chance at winning elections.

 

[unknown]

Ya, I started a thread on this a few days ago. Annoying isn't it?

Good video.

 

[doctorfunk]

Not getting crazy with it. Of course it's a victory in the revolution for his policy ideas to be shaping politics. The potential problem that WE have to look out for is when the talk and credit shifts away from Dr. Paul and the Establishment attempts to own the ideas as their own. The excerpt in the WSJ article appears to do just that......look for it to happen more and more.

The true cause is about the ideas, no matter who gets credit for them. We're not just supporting a candidate, we're supporting a movement of freedom and personal liberty. Without winning the nomination, I think the ideas going mainstream is the best case scenario. If somebody else gets the GOP nomination, the best thing for our cause would be Obama winning (so Rand or somebody else can run in 2016). And it wouldn't be all bad to do well in the 2014 mid term elections for congress to get some support for some pro liberty ideas and Rand would actually be able to get some bills passed. A lame duck president could hurt the movement.