PDA

View Full Version : ronpaulwarnings.com ?




Black Dude
06-11-2008, 02:17 PM
I was wondering if anyone knows of a website just for showing all of the warnings that Ron has given in the past that have now come true (Iraq war, housing bubble, patriot act abuse, etc).
If not, I was thinking of making one, something like RonPaulWarnings.com... or something like that. I was thinking that it would be good to have his future warnings as well (national ID card, etc).
Also, maybe adding in advice/warnings from economists like Peter Schiff. And maybe some Robert Kiyosaki stuff.
What do y'all think of the idea? Is there a website already out there like this? If not, do you have any suggestions for the website?
I could also put an email list signup on the site that lets people know when a "new warning" came out maybe?

acptulsa
06-11-2008, 02:20 PM
That isn't just an idea, that's the idea!

Black Dude
06-11-2008, 02:23 PM
That isn't just an idea, that's the idea!

thanks :)

do you think it should be called "ronpaulwarnings.com" or something more general... like, freedomwarnings.com or libertywarnings.com

I'm leaning towards RonPaulWarnings.com, that will let people know how ignorant they've been for not paying attention to him.

acptulsa
06-11-2008, 02:27 PM
I'm leaning towards RonPaulWarnings.com, that will let people know how ignorant they've been for not paying attention to him.

Anything catchy enough to help spread the information will work for me.

amy31416
06-11-2008, 02:32 PM
Very good idea, I like it. The address is a tempting one whether you like RP or not.

LibertyEagle
06-11-2008, 02:33 PM
That's a great idea! :)

Kludge
06-11-2008, 02:34 PM
I'll sell you the domain name for $500...

































Kidding :)

pinkmandy
06-11-2008, 02:37 PM
Great idea! Even neocons would likely visit the site thinking it is about warnings of all the terrible things that would happen if RP were President. ;)

Black Dude
06-11-2008, 02:55 PM
Ok, I just bought ronpaulwarnings.com

Thanks ahead of time to anyone that wants to look up some old warning speeches or articles and their links so I can get the site up and running a bit faster.

wgadget
06-11-2008, 02:59 PM
Here's a thesaurus listing for "warning"



Entry Word:
warning
Function:
noun

Text: 1 the act or an instance of telling beforehand of danger or risk <she delivered a strict warning that anyone who was caught cheating would get expelled> Synonymsadmonition, alarm, alert, caution, forewarning, notice Related Wordsauguring, augury, forecasting, foretelling, predicting, prediction, presaging, prognosticating, prophecy, prophesying; apprising, informing, notification, notifying; advice, counsel, guidance, recommendation, suggestion; announcement, declaration 2 something that tells of approaching danger or risk <the ominously darkening sky was a warning that a tornado was approaching> Synonymscaution, tocsin Related Wordsomen, portent; notification; buoy, knell, sign, signal; foretaste, foretoken; announcement, declaration

mkeller
06-11-2008, 03:07 PM
This is a great idea! Here are a couple:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/140707nodoubting.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/250507Ron_Paul.htm

dsentell
06-11-2008, 03:10 PM
Absolutely Fantastic!!!!

When I think of RP's warnings, I always start singing (in my head :D),


"and the words of the prophet are written on the subway walls . . ."

revolutionary8
06-11-2008, 03:10 PM
Here is one of his impressive predictions/warning.

Ron Paul and the Housing Bubble

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
July 16, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.

One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of housing-related GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr071602.htm

Black Dude
06-11-2008, 03:11 PM
I was thinking that this would be fun to put on there...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKsC_0fMjr0

amy31416
06-11-2008, 03:11 PM
Oooh, here's a good one for you:

Predictions

by Congressman Ron Paul, MD

Our government intervention in the economy and in the private affairs of citizens, and the internal affairs of foreign countries, leads to uncertainty and many unintended consequences. Here are some of the consequences about which we should be concerned.

I predict U.S. taxpayers will pay to rebuild Palestine, both the West Bank and the Gaza, as well as Afghanistan. U.S. taxpayers paid to bomb these areas, so we will be expected to rebuild them.

Peace, of sorts, will come to the Middle East, but will be short-lived. There will be big promises of more U.S. money and weapons flowing to Israel and to Arab countries allied with the United States.

U.S. troops and others will be used to monitor the "peace."

In time, an oil boycott will be imposed, with oil prices soaring to historic highs.

Current Israeli-United States policies will solidify Arab Muslim nations in their efforts to avenge the humiliation of the Palestinians. That will include those Muslim nations that in the past have fought against each other.

Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists.

The U.N. will continue to condemn, through resolutions, Israeli-U.S. policies in the Middle East, and they will be ignored.

Some European countries will clandestinely support the Muslim countries and their anti-Israel pursuits.

China, ironically assisted by American aid, much more openly will sell to militant Muslims the weapons they want, and will align herself with the Arab nations.

The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result.

Major moves will be made by China, India, Russia, and Pakistan in Central Asia to take advantage of the chaos for the purpose of grabbing land, resources, and strategic advantages sought after for years.

The Karzai government will fail, and U.S. military presence will end in Afghanistan.

An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States.

Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, with exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending.

Federal Reserve policy will continue at an expanding rate, with massive credit expansion, which will make the dollar crisis worse. Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money.

Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act.

The draft will be reinstated, causing domestic turmoil and resentment.

Many American military personnel and civilians will be killed in the coming conflict.

The leaders of whichever side loses the war will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The United States will not officially lose the war, but neither will we win. Our military and political leaders will not be tried by the International Criminal Court.

The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives.

Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas.

This is the most important of my predictions: Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring. Unfortunately, that will not occur. In due course, the Constitution will continue to be steadily undermined and the American Republic further weakened.

During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security.

The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East.

Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos.

I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5 to 10 years. Let us hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased.

April 26, 2002

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul29.html

Black Dude
06-11-2008, 03:13 PM
Thanks for your support on this guys/gals! I'm hoping to make this an awesome website

dsentell
06-11-2008, 03:15 PM
It will be AWESOME!!

I am getting goosebumps reading some of the warnings already posted . . .

amy31416
06-11-2008, 03:23 PM
Here's another source I found:

http://www.libertyordie.com/?p=20

Ron Paul 1983: Same Platform, Same Warnings - Predicting the 1987 Recession
2008 Presidential Campaign, Gold Standard
Add comments

In 1983 a debate was held on the issue of the Gold Standard and the Federal Reserve. The debate was between Congressman Ron Paul, supporter (and still to this day) of a currency backed by a gold, and Charles Partee, member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

The platform of Ron Paul in 1983 and his warning of recession is what makes this video relevant for today. In the highlight video below, he issues several warnings, predictions, and interesting points:
Central Planning leads to booms and bust (today’s real estate boom/bust)
Predicts the 1987 recession
Morality: What moral right do we have to create value out of thin-air
Trust: People trust in their government


Here's the video they link to: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6epCVUppjJM

Rhys
06-11-2008, 03:50 PM
shouldalistened.com ??

dsentell
06-11-2008, 03:53 PM
shouldalistened.com ??

oooooooooooh, THAT's NICE toooooo!

amy31416
06-11-2008, 03:55 PM
shouldalistened.com ??

Hahahah.

In that same vein: itoldyouso.com

(not being serious, obviously.)

wgadget
06-11-2008, 03:58 PM
There's always the 2002 Bill Moyers interview, where he said we should NOT invade Iraq. One of my favorites.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2008/01/bill_moyers_rewind_ron_paul_20.html

RonPaulFever
06-11-2008, 04:11 PM
Video of RP warning about invading Iraq in Oct. 2002:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZ5cpaPlf4

UKLooney
06-11-2008, 05:28 PM
There's always the 2002 Bill Moyers interview, where he said we should NOT invade Iraq. One of my favorites.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2008/01/bill_moyers_rewind_ron_paul_20.html

YouTubed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxSconpj8Zc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ1fnfcrnmA

humanic
06-11-2008, 05:30 PM
what about ListenToRon.com

haaaylee
06-11-2008, 05:36 PM
what about ronpaulsawthiscoming.info

smartguy911
06-11-2008, 05:41 PM
how about -

http://www.savetheconstitution.com/
http://www.takebackyourcountry.com/
http://www.itstimetowakeup.com
http://www.grandpapaul.com

tonesforjonesbones
06-11-2008, 06:39 PM
I can't wait to see this website..I know it will go right into my favorite places TONES

acptulsa
06-12-2008, 06:32 AM
Should it be laid out as a table? Something like this maybe:

Prediction <link> Date and place Came true, date and <link>

With extra predictions at the bottom of the list with the resolution blank? The ones at the bottom can be filled in when they come true...

Black Dude
06-12-2008, 12:48 PM
Should it be laid out as a table? Something like this maybe:

Prediction <link> Date and place Came true, date and <link>

With extra predictions at the bottom of the list with the resolution blank? The ones at the bottom can be filled in when they come true...

I like that idea.
That's kinda how I'm setting it up right now. I'm going to try and have the first draft of the site up by the end of the week. The "Under Construction" page is up right now. http://www.ronpaulwarnings.com
Keep the ideas comin!

amy31416
06-12-2008, 01:06 PM
I like that idea.
That's kinda how I'm setting it up right now. I'm going to try and have the first draft of the site up by the end of the week. The "Under Construction" page is up right now. http://www.ronpaulwarnings.com
Keep the ideas comin!

Thanks Black Dude!

I'll see what else I can find later on, looking forward to seeing it come together.

acptulsa
07-10-2008, 01:49 PM
This help?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=146122

acptulsa
07-24-2008, 01:05 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=147718

TheSkeptic
07-24-2008, 05:06 PM
Just another suggestion... writingonthewall.com

itoldyouso.com is really catchy. That's the best - I guarantee it's taken though.

Andrew-Austin
07-24-2008, 05:15 PM
I like "shouldalistened.com", and "writingonthewall.com"

which could also include warnings from the founding fathers...

We could always digg whore the site when its up and running.

Mark
07-24-2008, 06:35 PM
WhoKnewTheTruth.com - I bought it a few months back for possibly something like a truth expose' site to inform the unenlightened.

I suppose it would work as a "who knew it would happen" type URL.

TheSkeptic
07-25-2008, 08:05 AM
At this point, I think "youreallfuckedandtheresnothingyoucandoaboutit.com" will be the most appropriate.

liberteebell
07-25-2008, 08:37 AM
There are a lot of essays/speeches in Ron Paul's "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" that would serve as predictions.

One of my favorites is "Neoconned!"

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

acptulsa
08-14-2008, 12:53 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=150291

acptulsa
08-19-2008, 06:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya6JfFK_lYQ

westmich4paul
08-19-2008, 06:44 AM
How about www.paulwarnedyou.com?

freelance
08-19-2008, 06:48 AM
That's one of the best ideas I've heard in a long time!


How about www.paulwarnedyou.com?

I like the original idea better, because ronpaulwarnings.com is a tad ambiguous. In fact, I thought it was warnings ABOUT RP. Others will too. That will pull in people who want dirt on Ron Paul and that will help to expand the number of viewers.

acptulsa
09-12-2008, 05:57 AM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=155075

acptulsa
09-17-2008, 06:02 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=156150

kathy88
09-17-2008, 06:31 PM
This is GREAT. Keep 'em coming. Black dude, thanks for stepping up :)

RonPaulVolunteer
09-17-2008, 06:38 PM
I was wondering if anyone knows of a website just for showing all of the warnings that Ron has given in the past that have now come true (Iraq war, housing bubble, patriot act abuse, etc).
If not, I was thinking of making one, something like RonPaulWarnings.com... or something like that. I was thinking that it would be good to have his future warnings as well (national ID card, etc).
Also, maybe adding in advice/warnings from economists like Peter Schiff. And maybe some Robert Kiyosaki stuff.
What do y'all think of the idea? Is there a website already out there like this? If not, do you have any suggestions for the website?
I could also put an email list signup on the site that lets people know when a "new warning" came out maybe?

I really encourage you to do this.

You have my full support.

Make sure it's positive though, not whiny.

PauliticsPolitics
09-17-2008, 08:34 PM
did ronpaulwarnings.com never take off the ground?

it's too bad...
perhaps the OP can let some of the folks on here take over if he is no longer interested.

RonPaulVolunteer
09-17-2008, 08:55 PM
did ronpaulwarnings.com never take off the ground?

it's too bad...
perhaps the OP can let some of the folks on here take over if he is no longer interested.

Oh this is an old post. I guess it was while we were on tour and I never saw it.

This needs to be done.

jake
09-17-2008, 09:20 PM
how about www.paulwarnedus.com

klamath
09-17-2008, 09:30 PM
Ron Paul speaking against the Iraqi liberation act Oct. 5 1998

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, understand this legislation came before the committee on Friday, one legislative day prior to today. There has been no committee report filed, and it was brought up under suspension. And I believe this legislation is very serious legislation. It is not a casual piece of legislation condemning a leader in another country that is doing less than honorable things.

I see this piece of legislation as essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the President tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign Nation. It should not be done casually. I think it is another example of a flawed foreign policy that we have followed for a good many decades.

For instance, at the beginning of this legislation it is cited as one of the reasons why we must do something. It says on September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran starting an 8-year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops, very serious problems. We should condemn that. But the whole problem is we were Iraq’s ally at that time, giving him military assistance, giving him funds and giving him technology for chemical weapons.

So here we are now deciding that we have to virtually declare war against this individual. It is not like he is the only hoodlum out there. I could give my colleagues a list of 15 or 20. I do not like the leadership of China. Why do we not do something about China? I do not like the leadership of Sudan. But all of a sudden we have to decide what we are going to give this President to pursue getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

Just a few months ago, or last November, we passed a resolution, and the resolution was H.R. 137. It sounded very general and very benign, and it talked about the atrocities caused by Saddam Hussein, and we asked to condemn and also to set up a U.N. commission to study this and give the U.N. authority to pursue arrests and convict and try Saddam Hussein. So this is not something we are doing for the interests of the United States. We are doing this under the interests of the United Nations, but we are the spokesperson for them.

Not too long ago, a few years back, in 1980s, in our efforts to bring peace and democracy to the world we assisted the freedom fighters of Afghanistan, and in our infinite wisdom we gave money, technology and training to Bin Laden, and now, this very year, we have declared that Bin Laden was responsible for the bombing in Africa. So what is our response, because we allow our President to pursue war too easily? What was the President’s response? Some even say that it might have been for other reasons than for national security reasons. So he goes off and bombs Afghanistan, and he goes off and bombs Sudan, and now the record shows that very likely the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was precisely that, a pharmaceutical plant.

So I say we should stop and think for a minute before we pursue and give the President more authority to follow a policy that to me is quite dangerous. This to me is equivalent to declaring war and allowing the President to pursue this.

Another complaint listed on this legislation: in February 1988 Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their homes. Terrible thing to do, and they probably did; there is no doubt about it. But what did we do after the Persian Gulf war? We encouraged the Kurdish people to stand up and fight against Saddam Hussein, and they did, and we forgot about them, and they were killed by the tens of thousands. There is no reason for them to trust us. There is no reason for the Sudanese people to believe and trust in us, in what we do when we rain bombs on their country and they have done nothing to the United States. The people of Iraq certainly have not done anything to the United States, and we certainly can find leaders around the world that have not done equally bad things. I think we should stop and think about this.

Just today it was announced that the Turks are lined up on the Syrian border. What for? To go in there and kill the Kurds because they do not like the Kurds. I think that is terrible. But what are we doing about it? Who are the Turks? They are our allies, they are our friends. They get military assistance. The American people are paying the Turks to keep their military up. So we are responsible for that.

This policy makes no sense. Some day we have to think about the security of United States. We spend this money. We spent nearly $100 million bombing nobody and everybody for who knows what reason last week. At the same time our military forces are undertrained and lack equipment, and we are wasting money all around the world trying to get more people, see how many people we can get to hate us. Some day we have to stop and say why are we pursuing this. Why do we not have a policy that says that we should, as a Congress, defend the United States, protect us, have a strong military, but not to police the world in this endless adventure of trying to be everything to everybody. We have been on both sides of every conflict since World War II. Even not too long ago they were talking about bombing in Kosovo. As a matter of fact, that is still a serious discussion. But a few months ago they said, well, we are not quite sure who the good guys are, maybe we ought to bomb both sides. It makes no sense. Why do we not become friends to both sides?

There are people around the world that we deal with that are equally repulsive to Saddam Hussein, and I believe very sincerely that the founders of this country were on the right track when they said stay out of entangling alliances. And we should trade with people; we would get along with them better. We have pursued this type of policy in Cuba for 40 years, and it has served Castro well. Why do we not go down and get rid of Castro? Where do we get this authority to kill a dictator? We do not have that authority, and to do it under one day of hearings, mark it up, bring it up the next day under suspension; I do not understand why anybody could vote for this just on the nature of it.

We should not be doing this. We should stop and think about it and try to figure out a much better way.

I, for instance, am on a bill to trade with Cuba. Oh, how horrible, we should not trade with Cuba, they are a bunch of Commies down there. But we should be selling them rice and we should be selling them our crops. We should not be bombing these people.

As my colleagues know, at the end of this bill I think we get a hint as to why we do not go to Rwanda for humanitarian reasons. Now there is some atrocities. Why do we not clean that mess up? Because I believe very sincerely that there is another element tied into this, and I think it has something to do with money, and I think it has something to do with oil. The oil interests need the oil in Iraq, and he does not, Saddam Hussein does not, comply with the people of the west. So he has to go.

But also at the end of this legislation it tells us something about what might be going on. It is they are asking to set up and check into the funds that Saddam Hussein owes to the west. Who is owed? They do not owe me any money. But I will bet my colleagues there is a lot of banks in New York who are owed a lot of money, and this is one of the goals, to set up and make sure Saddam Hussein pays his bills.

All I do is ask my colleagues to think about it, urge them to go slowly. Nothing is so pressing that we should give the President this much authority to go to war.

Under the appropriations it is endless, it is open, endless, and here we are concerned about saving Social Security. Any amount of money spent on this bill comes out of Social Security. Yes, there was yelling and screaming about a tax cut. Oh, it is coming out of Social Security. Well, this money is not appropriated, and it is such sums as necessary for military and economic benefits. After we get rid of one thug, we are going to have it in. I hope we make a better choice than we did with Bin Laden. I mean he was our close ally.

Please think twice, slow up, vote against this bill. We do not need this.