Adam Kokesh Announces Congressional Run! Endorsed by Dr. Ron Paul

Name calling is too useless, its pitiful that so many people use it, because it is a sign immaturity and lack of vocabulary...

Whatever you want to believe....you seem to be good at imagining things! I have 1 screenname regardless of the slander and libel you see here, or do you automatically believe anything liars tell you? Go ahead, message these REAL people back...they will talk to you. You might even be able to call them on the phone if your conspiracy theory doesn't play out.....haha

metalcookiesxy70, you should prove that I am using multiple accounts if you seriously believe that! Go ahead, call around. I can actually tell you most of the people's screennames and possibly even have them approve it so you can call them in order for your delusions to be suppressed. You look silly acting like the liberty movement is made up of one person...haha

I only asked a question, but it seems I must ask what is your purpose here?

Hehe, I am not delusional about anything I just asked a simple question, no need to get fustrated, what liars? You are the only one talking to I...

...You're gettting ahead of yourself, assuming too many things...

But you sure are overreacting?

~Fufufufufufu..

Not Canadian. Had sixty relatives who fought in the revolutionary war. We are an older branch of the famous American Kennedy's. We came from Scotland in the early 1700's to this country.

As for education in political matters even libretarian ones, I have been published on the libretarian blog published by Radley Balko, the Agitator. Indiana my home state has one of few truly active Libretarian parties and I've met libretarian candidates.

My family has been active in politics, I may only be 21 but has served in a civil service position for two years and served as a government contractor in a public private partnership for another six months. I've also worked actively on two political campaigns putting in more than seventy volunteer hours for each.

I'm the nephew of a former conservative republican representative from my home state. My grandfather was a city councilman, my families political roots go back to the 1800's when they worked and housed a young circuit court man you may know as Abraham Lincoln.

I am studying both history and public policy in my persuit of a degree in public relations with my ultimate goal a masters in genetic counseling to cover public policy on medical issues something I'm both passionate and well versed in as someone who sufferes from a genetic ailment.

I'm not uninformed or indoctrinated. I'm frankly enlightened. I've seen libretarians up close and personal and found you to be truly repugnant people whose philosphy precludes compasion or pragmatism. You simply don't live in a constitutional reality you live in a constitutional falacy. While we may agree on certain liberal policies in regards to civil liberties you will not find my support in your dogmatic stymied aproach to governing. I am not foolish enough to hand over the reigns of power to those who shout down power and call government inefective. Government has been run by small government cronies for the last generation and they saw to making government not an entity so small it could be drowned in a tub but rather turning govenrment into a tub to drown constructive policy debates in. You sir contribute to that.

You have my vote

Sounds like a fascist. Shoting about Tyrany usualy means you have some Tyrany in you yourself.

You let your government steal money from you to go and drop bombs on innocent women and children and commit mass murder!

That is where you loose me.

I don't see US troops as mass murderers

its not the troops that I am talking about they are taking orders if they do not follow these orders they in turn can be court-martialled.

I am talking about the federal government, they are the ones making the decissions and giving the orders.

the only slaves here are the deluded members of the cult of ron paul

I have little respect for the cult of ron paul, and I will speak when and where I please

I simply asked you not to respond to me, not that you couldn't post on the site or these articles. I am tired of your rude cutdowns and lack of debate on the real issues. You backed some guy up above who quoted the U.S. as having 90% of its people in poverty in the 1800s! Are you guys serious? Another thing, the guy you backed obviously hasn't researched history because the booms and busts that feed the corporate welfare and levitate money from the poor to the rich came about AFTER the inception of the Federal Reserve....but you have fun with that revisionist history....now PLEASE never "reply" to me again...especially if you are going to call people names instead of discussing and debating the issues!

It's hard to fathom but some people's self-respect is so low that they only way that they can feel alive is by attacking other people.
It's probably best not to reward such behavior by responding to them as if they were mentally stable as this only seems to encourage them.
If we ignore them they will eventually go away and seek out others to prey upon others.
Such people are to be pitied rather than hated.

how many screen names do you have?

If you want to be effective minimize the spam - you only engender contempt and disrespect by your obnoxious and repeated posts with your lap dogs / phony screen names saying BS like "Interesting, thank you."

It is total BS and the community sees through your manipulation.

Thank you Mike. Adam is the real peace candidate. He is a "Classic Liberal" with a true grasp of the realities of our , our monetary policy and compromised fiat currency, our corporate controlled foreign policy, the military industrial complex, and their combined negative affect on our society and the world.

I hope the people who are lashing out take the time to hear his message, as it resonates with people from all political persuasions. It is time for us all to come together and cast aside the perceived divisions and labels that are nothing but manifestations of the controlled media and their handlers. Peace.

They are poisoned by partisanship, don't engage them, just hope they come around.

You objectify all criticism of Ron Paul or Libretarians as ill informed. There is no greater sign of a weak position than one that casts its opposition as ignorant. You deserve nothing but derision because of the vile and inacurate condescension you utelize on a daily basis.

You fear government, you deride government, you think that government protections such as the FDIC and Federal Reserve should be abollished, think the FBI, Department of Education, and Department of Agriculture are unconstitutional and think the gold standard can save monetary policy despite the fact that it and libretarian policies of the 1800s resulted in a constanct cycle of boom and bust that left the poor composing more than ninety percent of the population.

Now is my turn to call you uneducated.

well said ocanada

@ ocanada (and unimatrix0 for agreeing)

I'd say you should do some more research on the 1800s. First, I have to ask, where did you get that the "poor" accounted for 90% of the 1800s population? And also, can you define the term "poor"?

Next, throughout the 1800s (the whole century), how many years did we have the market set the interest rates? The period between 1811-1816 is the ONLY period up for debate. We can talk about it if you would like, but I have a feeling you'll opt out. At the start of the century we still had the First Bank of the US distorting the market. Five years after its charter had expired we needed to create a Second Bank (1816-1836) because we had overspent on the war of 1812 and had a severe inflation problem. Then came the Free Bank Era (1837-1862). Was the market allowed to set the interest rates at that point? Nope. The only reason it's called the "Free" banking era is because it was free of federal regulation. Each state still regulated the chartered banks. Then in 1963 the National Bank Act passed. And that will take us all the way up to the end of the century (until 1913 when the Fed Reserve Act was passed).

We saw one great depression this century after we worked to halt that prospect with entities such as the FDIC that your lovely Dr. Paul has said is an evil organization. While the depression was terrible and we have had several recessions since the 1800's saw not one depression but five! In 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893. While none were as protracted as the great depression they were all severe contractions of the econemy that meet the definition of a depression something we have been fortunate not to repeat. By the gilded age at the end of the 1800's where standards of living were at thier heights for much of the country notwithstanding the south which incurred greater social disparity after the war and reconstruction we still had 37 percent of working Americans classed as indigent meaning that for more than 37 percent of the population every dollar if spent of food would still leave them malnourished. This is forgoing that there were people even worse off orphans and homeless which were also prevelent but If forty percent were so poor that even all of thier income left them without food than you should understand what I mean of poverty in the age of the robber barron. Your system, your rugged individualism that precludes the idea that your actions can affect me or mine yours let alone that of a multinational corporation you ignore the human angle and disavow our commonality as Americans. While that may be your right it isn't good governance.

A depression in 1873?? Please...
It was a deflationary period but GDP grew substantially. The period is misnamed. Read the wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression

I wish more people would take the time to research this vital information.

@ ocanada

The Rothbard book adamsmithfreedom posted a link to, Americas Great Depression, is a great resource to learn about the 1929 depression (and everything leading up to it). If you wanna get right to it though, just read chapter 4 (that's what I tell everyone).

You're right, throughout history business cycles have been present in times and countries without a central bank, but that's not really what the Hayek theory (Austrian Business Cycle Theory) is. A more accurate way of stating it would be that the fractional-reserve system allows banks to issue money (paper or digital) without the act of someone actually saving more money. (That is, in a free market, if someone saved more, then the banks would have more to loan. And that would be the only way they could loan money.) However, since an artificially low interest rate results from the fractional-reserve system, the market is distorted and investors are led to believe that more resources are available. In reality though, bankers are just creating more money (not resources).

If banks weren't inherently bankrupt orginizations in the first place (a run will prove it), there would be no need for the FDIC.

The point here is that the fractional-reserve policy is a reckless one. It leads to market distortions, booms and ultimately busts. You mentioned some recessions throughout the 1800s (and left some out as well), but even though "central banks" came and went in the 1800s, the reckless fractional-reserve policies existed the whole time.

Do you see what happened here? Now even if your "facts" about the 1800s are correct, they become irrelevant because the very thing the Austrian school blames the boom-bust cycles on, has existed throughout the entire period you mentioned. (And just for clarity, again, it's all about the market becoming distorted and business men creating unsustainable lines of production. More money doesn't mean more resources; more resources mean more resources.)

You are asking for a leap of faith that belabors all reason with this idea. That deregulation would lead to further financial crises is certain. The system is inherently greedy and our current crises stems not from Federal regulation but from its loose regulatory policies that allowed financial derivitives to go overleveredged at a rate thirty to one.

I readily admit that I was using overgeneralizations for a perdiod of a century. However your monetary policy seems rooted in the era of the Robber Baron where economics allowed men like Vanderbilt and Carnegie to rule the roost politicaly and otherwise. To an era before the FDA, FDIC, minimum wage, and child labor laws. and one that no average American would ever want to return to.

I agree -- I believe the fractional-reserve system does promote greed amongst bankers. I'm not really asking for deregulation; I'm asking for a change in the way which interest rates are regulated. Interest rates are supposed to represent people's time-preferences (I want to buy now, or later, for example). If they save, that means they want to buy later (they want to purchase what is rightfully theirs later). Further, it means the banks will have a large pool of money to lend from and, as a result, the interest rates will be low. Investors, in this case, will 1) know that people intend to spend their money later, and 2) have access to low interest rates. But when interest rates are artificially lowered (not set by the market), then investors make a lot of bad investments. Moreover, easy money makes it's easy for investors to bid the prices of resources up (since resources are limited). And now we have a bubble. When the market finally realizes that there are not enough resources to sustain all of their projects, the bubble pops.

Many of the same families who "ruled the roost" a century ago, still do. To put it mildly, bankers have an "intimate" relationship with the people who control the money supply and big corporations have "intimate" connections with the lawmakers.

I think if the average american waiting to see who the next American Idol is going to be knew more about how our system worked, and the direction it's headed, they would want to abandon it. Fractional-reserve banking was more limited in the 1800s because we at least had the gold standard to prevent (or, rather, try to prevent) our government from counterfeiting money to finance their projects, wars, etc..., but even a return to that wouldn't be satisfactory. The fractional-reserve system itself is reckless. Any regulation short of regulating the system itself is just focusing on a consequence of the problem rather than the problem itself.

Than your views are different than your candidates and party. (perhaps not terribly unexpected in a party that takes the label of anarchists or free thinkers) Your beloved Dr. Paul has advocated a reckless retooling of the government to cut away many protections for consumers such as the FDA, and USDA and to hell with food safety. To hell with failing banks despite the fact that just one caused the first blows of this crises. Lets get rid of the FDIC and Reserve immediately and lets see what happens. Americas currency woudl evaporate overnight and send the world into a reeling choas that while they might recover from we almost certainly would not.

I think Paul, as well as any Austrian economist, would agree that the fractional-reserve system promotes reckless behavior and we ought not keep those policies which give the bankers special benefits. They create moral hazard.

You should read through Paul's Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act. It's super short. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2755

And libertarians should not be called anarchists. Here's something Rothbard wrote that you should take a look at: http://mises.org/story/2801 (Feel free to skip to the last paragraph, but the whole thing is good.)

Libretarians should be known as anarchists. In fact its the term you are going to see when you continue posting here at Current.

ocanada just bit the bullet! Calling libertarians anarchists just goes to show you how little ocanada really understands liberty ideals. It's sad, because these people don't even research HOW libertarian ideals are to be carried out such as property rights and justice and restitution for environmental protection. I guess it's just easier to slander and falsely label people something than to debate them with real facts. 90% poverty.....wow! Just wow......

How can anybody take this person seriously.....

If the term "anarchist" is constantly associated with the term "libertarian" here on current, then I'll just take that as the current.com user base is uninformed. Or rather, those users who associate the two terms will be labeled as uninformed about, at minimum, one of the terms.

I've been published on libretarian websites such as the Agiatotor. I've talked to local libretarian candidates and in the mock elections at my High School voted for Badnarik in 2004. It isn't that I don't understand what libretarians offer its that I am no longer in any way a conservative or member of the conservative movement.

I think its a failed and callous and too much human suffering has been allowed to occur in America in the last decade because of "rugged individualism" that true change is needed.

Libretarians have no real energy policy, no public option in thier healthcare policy, and have dubious economic policy that is rooted in the 1800s and doesn't adress the complexities of the American and global economic system. While its fair to say some of those complexities are to blame for our current economic climate attempting to scrap the system that is global and interconnected is little more than isolationism and such failed policies resulted in large part for past global depressions. Implementing such changes now might lead to a global depression. While I am for transparency I'm a pragmatic and don't in any way believe in limited government, I don't care about the size of government at all, just ites efectiveness. I want good governorship. America is a democratic country founded with the ideal that a government held acountable to its people through elective office could best govern. I beleive in that. I beleive in being active IN the government to help aleviate problems that the private sector will not fix because profit precludes them from fixing rather than treating.

I don't know what "no public option in their healthcare" means, but by saying no energy policy and no single payer national healthcare plan (if that's what you mean), you're just saying that they are not socialist, or fascists. They also don't have a plan to merge the government with corporations. They don't think bankers should have special benefits and they believe that no subset of the market is smarter than the market itself.

And Mises and Keynes were around the same time. More people listened to Keynes because his idea meant that people suffered very little in a recession. If you talk to anyone about Keynes, it takes them about 2 seconds to realize that something funny's going on. You think the economy's bad now? Just wait until government grows even more, they decide to tax more, they decide to print/counterfeit more and they decide to borrow more (if anyone will lend them anything) just to keep all these bs programs they cannot afford propped up. Then you'll see an economic catastrophe.

The funny thing is, though, once these Keynesian policies fail (again), are people going to learn? We didn't learn from the new deal, we didn't learn from the 1970s, we didn't learn from 1920's japan vs 1920-21 United States and we didn't learn from 1990s Japan. So the answer is, probably not. What will their response be? "We didn't spend enough." insanity.

Please don't play revisionist history again by saying that FDR was a fascist. The conservative attempt at villification of a true American hero is beyond the pale. You can take solace in the fact I'm done talking with you. If you are curious as to why I wasn't exactly kind or bothered with any real discourse with you people is because of such actions. There is real hate that is boiling in my blood right now. My family was saved by the Civillian Conservation Corps and the W.P.A. my grandparents would have went hungry without them and thier parents only wanted the dignity of work. You can be a Hoover economist all you want but there is a reason less than fiver percent of the electorate will side with you in electoral politics and it isn't soley an issue of money.

You think I believe that Hoover has good ideas on fiscal and monetary policies? I do not. Roosevelt's new deal was largely a continuation (but on a larger scale) of Hoover's failed policies.

I remember you talking about your family's struggles a few months back and how the support through programs like WPA and CCC made it possible for them to survive. It sucks that they struggled, but had the Fed not been distorting the market since 1922, there's no way the depression would have been that severe, nor that long. And there would be no need for programs of that kind.

The new deal's policies helped some people (like your grandparents), but hurt far more. We're getting into more of an ethical argument here (I'm trying to stay away), but the new deal policies extended the depression to almost 15 years. Compare that to the depression from 1920-21. The policies of the current administration will hurt us even more. The point is, the system we currently have is built on a bad foundation. I'm all for helping people and preventing economic struggles, but it will not be solved by Keynesian ideas.

Thank you.

This is a bunch of libretarian nutjobs (do they only exist on the internet?) who do this over and over again. Flooding the site with little more than spam and propoganda. Its what politicians call astroturf. Artificial grassroots.

This is very unkind language.
Hatred does not win any hearts and minds to your position.
On the contrary it causes people to not hear your message because they are focusing on the hatred. :(

Nope, I hear his message, and I agree. Ron Paul is a nutjob

Just like a true socialost uni, call one who speaks truth a douche bag, when in fact you should use one and wash your brain.

oh, washing brains. like brain washing right? and spamming? and forcing this libertarian corporation-cock-sucking garbage onto the top ten every day?

and its socialist. I'm not one, but I do know how to spell and not wear floral shirts

You can block him ya know.

you also have to block his four other screen names! good luck

Yeah, but it's the principle of the matter. Even if I personally block him, he's still going to succeed at doing the same thing. At least this way I can be sure to vote him down.

true, I just try not to comment on his/her bs, otherwise it just gets up further.