[Video] Peter Schiff "All the coverage Ron Paul got was why he couldn't win!"

[tsai3904]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jum7xpkrGc0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jum7xpkrGc0

[Indy Vidual]

teaser please:
General negative coverage, newsletters, anti-war gadfly...
What kind of coverage?

[tangent4ronpaul]

"All the coverage he got was why he couldn't win. How he was so far out there. If they had taken him seriously from the beginning..."

-t

[Indy Vidual]

"All the coverage he got was why he couldn't win. How he was so far out there. If they had taken him seriously from the beginning..."

-t

Thanks.

[wgadget]

WOW!!

Peter Schiff tells it like it is. AWESOME INTERVIEW.

[michaelwise]

This comment from a participant at Zero Hedge.com;

Political implications of the future currency crisis:

FACT IS >>>>> WE ARE GOING OFF A CLIFF WITH EITHER OBAMA OR ROMNEY. It is too late to change course. And Repubs endorsing a gold standard is laughable. We are looking at a currency collapse in the next few years. As soon as we loose our reserve currency status, our rates will spike and we will be TOAST.

Given that a majority of the US public is very uneducated from an economic standpoint, they are very likely going to blame this collapse on the politics and on who is currently in office. I think we can agree that neither Obama nor Romney are going to enact measures that will prevent this collapse.

Therefore, we need to ask our selves the following: Do we want an economic collapse under an “Overt Socialist” i.e. Obama? Or do we want the collapse during the administration of a RINO that supposedly (at least in the minds of the ignorant US public) stands for Free Market Capitalism?

I am scared of a back lash against Free Market Capitalism if the Economic Collapse happens during Romney’s administration. This could very well lead to the government enacting much harsher economic controls and lead to a totalitarianism state.

But if the Economic Collapse happens during the Obama administration, then the US public will more likely see the actual writing on the wall and finally return to Free Markets.

Therefore I will be voting for the man that is the furthest from my point of view. Obama. I think a collapse in his term would be better, he will get the blame and rightly so.

[Toxic]

Peter Schiff may very well be the future face of the movement. His balls are a bit more brassy than Ron Paul's.

[Iptay]

Peter Schiff may very well be the future face of the movement. His balls are a bit more brassy than Ron Paul's.
Couldn't agree more. I wish Peter Schiff was my econ professor.

[Sola_Fide]

Great interview. These people still don't get it. They think they can keep this charade of fake money going forever.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Speaking of media coverage, maybe we should play dirty next time. Nader's people did things like sneaking into the audio room of Walmart and dropping off tapes, switching on the PA and bailing.

Consider what could be accomplished with lowly janitor jobs and "mislabeling" tapes that are scheduled to play at TV stations or being that midnight tape jocky...

-t

[low preference guy]

Peter Schiff may very well be the future face of the movement. His balls are a bit more brassy than Ron Paul's.

Yeah, but Schiff is personally pro-choice, so he is a nonstarter politically.

[Toxic]

Yeah, but Schiff is personally pro-choice, so he is a nonstarter politically.

So what? Pro-life and pro-choice shouldn't be on the president's desk. If you think about nonstarters, damn near every libertarian idea is a nonstarter.

[emazur]

Yeah, but Schiff is personally pro-choice, so he is a nonstarter politically.

Isn't it fairly common for NE Republican candidates to be pro-choice?

[TheTexan]

Yeah, but Schiff is personally pro-choice, so he is a nonstarter politically.

I'm definitely making these numbers up, but:
-- roughly 45% of people are VERY strongly pro-life, and aren't going to budge on their position
-- roughly 45% of people are VERY strongly pro-choice, and aren't going to budge on their position
-- roughly 10% of people don't really give a shit about it as a political issue

Schiff can run as a liberty Democrat instead. Liberty isn't restricted to a single party.

With that said, all of this strife between the two groups is idiotic. The first 45% is 100% sure that the other 45% is completely wrong. The other 45% is 100% sure that the other is 45% is completely wrong.

All the conflict and fighting between the two is what happens when you legislate morality. I understand that many, many people on these forums view abortion as murder and would like it prosecuted as such, but that simply will not ever work when so many people don't think there's anything wrong with abortion.

The bottom line is this is an issue of morality, and legislating morality should be kept to as local of a level as possible. Maybe state, but definitely not federal. As such, a local issue should be at the bottom of your priorities when considering federal candidates. I understand that a person's view on abortion can reflect on their moral principles as a whole, but generally a true liberty candidate will have otherwise exceptional morals, aside from this issue.

So while this country's views on this issue is split right down the middle, it doesn't really matter which half we cater to. At the moment, this issue is used as another system of control, for exactly this purpose. To keep the country divided. If we want to truly make progress, we're going to need to find a way to unite both groups of people.

[Toxic]

I'm definitely making these numbers up, but:
-- roughly 45% of people are VERY strongly pro-life, and aren't going to budge on their position
-- roughly 45% of people are VERY strongly pro-choice, and aren't going to budge on their position
-- roughly 10% of people don't really give a shit about it as a political issue

Schiff can run as a liberty Democrat instead. Liberty isn't restricted to a single party.

With that said, all of this strife between the two groups is idiotic. The first 45% is 100% sure that the other 45% is completely wrong. The other 45% is 100% sure that the other is 45% is completely wrong.

All the conflict and fighting between the two is what happens when you legislate morality. I understand that many, many people on these forums view abortion as murder and would like it prosecuted as such, but that simply will not ever work when so many people don't think there's anything wrong with abortion.

The bottom line is this is an issue of morality, and legislating morality should be kept to as local of a level as possible. Maybe state, but definitely not federal. As such, a local issue should be at the bottom of your priorities when considering federal candidates. I understand that a person's view on abortion can reflect on their moral principles as a whole, but generally a true liberty candidate will have otherwise exceptional morals, aside from this issue.

So while this country's views on this issue is split right down the middle, it doesn't really matter which half we cater to. At the moment, this issue is used as another system of control, for exactly this purpose. To keep the country divided. If we want to truly make progress, we're going to need to find a way to unite both groups of people.

It shouldn't be touched on a federal level. So if it's not to be touched, there's no reason to have it as an issue except to give all control of it to the states.