TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Ron Paul Supporters...SUPPORT OBAMA
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Ron Paul Supporters...SUPPORT OBAMA

Nuff said..

The guy is sensible, will put some freakin regulation on Wall Street, and most of all, is not a divisive figure. If you notice, it's the GOP propaganda machine spreading false rumors and controversy about Obama, trying to put him on the defensive. They are systematically trying to bring his campaign down.

Ron Paul supporters, Obama needs us. Vote for Barack!

that would be a massive .009% swing to obama!

You guys are retarded, listen to the MSM and throw bs around.

Ron Paul had a _perfect_ idea for the country and was NOT batshit insane. If you've ever read a god damn book, none of these crappy candidates are going to anything but put us more in the hole.

The only thing different between Obama and McCain is that Obama supports hope and dreams.

What a stupid ass "slogan" that just brings people in.

"OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG HE'S FOR HOPE AND CHANGE, FUCK ME, I WANT TO TOUCH MYSELF NOW"

Also, Ron Paul had a lot more support than you saw on Fox News. In Fact, before the primaries, Ron Paul, and even Huckabee had more support than Obama. Then towards the primaries everybody just started creaming their pants on Obama.

quote:

Originally posted by shapes You guys are retarded, listen to the MSM and throw bs around. Ron Paul had a _perfect_ idea for the country and was NOT batshit insane. If you've ever read a god damn book, none of these crappy candidates are going to anything but put us more in the hole. The only thing different between Obama and McCain is that Obama supports hope and dreams. What a stupid ass "slogan" that just brings people in. "OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG HE'S FOR HOPE AND CHANGE, FUCK ME, I WANT TO TOUCH MYSELF NOW"

I've never read any books before in my life, but common sense (not the MSM which I don't watch or read) tells me that Ron Paul is an effing loon.

Also, try critically consuming speeches given by candidates and the policy statements given by advisers - Obama's appeal is a lot deeper than a word or slogan. But then again, maybe if you weren't so busy reading books and instead used your time to keep up on the actual literature coming out from the campaigns, you'd already know that.

quote:

Originally posted by shapes Also, Ron Paul had a lot more support than you saw on Fox News. In Fact, before the primaries, Ron Paul, and even Huckabee had more support than Obama. Then towards the primaries everybody just started creaming their pants on Obama.

I'd LOVE to see your source on that one.




Polling data on Obama going back to November 2006:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Polling data on Ron Paul going back to October 2006:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html

Ron Paul cracked double digits in one poll (an outlier), and Obama never fell below 17% in a single poll (at which time Ron Paul was polling at roughly 1%)... soooo... your statement was complete BS and not at all based on fact. Which is about par for the course from a Ron Paul supporter.

Hey, I would have loved to vote for Paul if I had the chance...

Now I have to weigh my options:

McCain - Probably headed in much the same direction as Bush when it comes to removal of civil liberties, which, in my opinion is the biggest concern for me at the moment. There may be a chance that the size of the government wouldn't balloon as much as if a democrat were in office, but that doesn't trump my hatred of the removal of freedoms of the American people. He also seems willing to stay in Iraq as long as needed and is fairly open to other military "endeavors."

Obama - (If this is Hillary instead, McCain will get my vote.) I don't mind the guy, seems fairly genuine and articulate for a politician. I'm not a huge fan of his health care plans, but they're not as horrific as Hillary's. He has stated that he will restore civil liberties and also remove some of the power the president and central government has. Also seems willing to get out of Iraq. I'll take the risk of a bigger government if it comes with the return of civil liberties and the intelligent withdraw of troops.


So, in the end it's big government vs. civil liberties and civil liberties (Obama) wins. I know it's a simplistic approach, but that's how I've watered it down.

who the fuck else are they going to support, clinton, mccain? haha right

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that would be a massive .009% swing to obama!

Wrong. The Ron Paul campaign no fringe campaign. They just got publicity because many fringe groups supported him.

quote:

You guys are retarded, listen to the MSM and throw bs around. Ron Paul had a _perfect_ idea for the country and was NOT batshit insane. If you've ever read a god damn book, none of these crappy candidates are going to anything but put us more in the hole. The only thing different between Obama and McCain is that Obama supports hope and dreams. What a stupid ass "slogan" that just brings people in. "OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG HE'S FOR HOPE AND CHANGE, FUCK ME, I WANT TO TOUCH MYSELF NOW" Also, Ron Paul had a lot more support than you saw on Fox News. In Fact, before the primaries, Ron Paul, and even Huckabee had more support than Obama. Then towards the primaries everybody just started creaming their pants on Obama.

Ron Paul will not win. So why continue to support him for president. Huccabee is not a democrat, so you can't compare his numbers to Obama's. Also, Obama is more than just words. Do you watch PBS?

1 Hour with Barack Obama on Charlie Rose - PBS

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]

I'll be supporting him cuz Mccain (Bush 2.0) would be a farking disaster.

The republicans need to suffer a humiliating defeat to make them realize what a huge mistake they've made in allowing neocons to hijack the party. Hopefully once the whole "lets change the world with force" idea is purged from the GOP, they will go back to true conservatism and offer voters a real choice in 2012.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 who the fuck else are they going to support, clinton, mccain? haha right

lol, well they gotta support someone, and it should be Obama..

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I'll be supporting him cuz Mccain (Bush 2.0) would be a farking disaster. The republicans need to suffer a humiliating defeat to make them realize what a huge mistake they've made in allowing neocons to hijack the party. Hopefully once the whole "lets change the world with force" idea is purged from the GOP, they will go back to true conservatism and offer voters a real choice in 2012.

been hitting the bong again i see. time to get your head out of the clouds and come back to reality. conservatives never realize anything, especially their own mistakes and/or incompetence. if theres going to be any change in idealism or direction on their part they'll play it off as always having been apart of the plan or some shit like that. bottom line they'll NEVER give you the satisfaction

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that would be a massive .009% swing to obama!

On the bright side, at least they count... most foreigners here (such as you and me) support Barack too, but if we counted, we would've been able to elect Kerry in 2004

quote:

Originally posted by shapes You guys are retarded, listen to the MSM and throw bs around. Ron Paul had a _perfect_ idea for the country and was NOT batshit insane. If you've ever read a god damn book, none of these crappy candidates are going to anything but put us more in the hole.

yeah, because denying evolution isnt batshit insane, nor is advocating a return to the gold standard.

and serious lol @ "perfect".

youre the one that seems to be lacking the education (or book reading as you said) not us.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, because denying evolution isnt batshit insane, nor is advocating a return to the gold standard.

Don't forget the paranoid, racist, homophobic newsletters!





Just the tip of the iceberg:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.h...c3-de262573a129
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

I think Obama can manage just fine without the support of conspiracy nuts, internet libertarians and white supremacists to be honest.

yeah get the token negro, he will do one hell of a difference. Ron Paul showed what he was made of when he pissed his socalled "grassroots" (read: the troofers) in the face by distancing himself from them. strike...youre out. The only thing he said that made sense was to abolish the FED, and this could hopefully have started a movement to rid of the socalled "central banks" once and for all.

Its good tho, i was getting fed up with the Ronbots that spawned all over the net, unfortunally only to be replaced with Obamabots.

The guy is a politician...but....but this one has to be different than that last 15 assholes we had in a row. ghah...im sure he will be, well atleast he has a new color innit?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Don't forget the paranoid, racist, homophobic newsletters! Just the tip of the iceberg: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.h...c3-de262573a129 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740 I think Obama can manage just fine without the support of conspiracy nuts, internet libertarians and white supremacists to be honest.

Uhm. He didn't write those. And publically came out and said he did not. Just like Obama just distanced himself from that batshit insane pastor or whatever. Obama has talked his way out of a lot of shit.

It IS just the "hope and change" slogan that brings people in. Ron Paul supporters did more than any other supporters in spreading the message of freedom and constitutionalism. You do NOT occupy countries, you do NOT go into war with countries without direct approval from congress. You go back to the gold standard and stop our economy from it's current recession. The government is going to be NO different with Obama and you're still going to get high gas prices, a shitty economy, and for those of you who believe terrorism is not government made; more terrorism.

I don't understand why people can't respect our law, the Constitution of the United States.

Stop your god damn bias on Obama and peek around other aspects. You're wrong about 95% of the garbage you said in this thread, and polls are bullshit. You just cream your pants over the "Hope and Change" slogan like everybody else.

funny, i thought hope was denial of reality?? i think i read that somewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by shapes Uhm. He didn't write those. And publically came out and said he did not. Just like Obama just distanced himself from that batshit insane pastor or whatever. Obama has talked his way out of a lot of shit. It IS just the "hope and change" slogan that brings people in. Ron Paul supporters did more than any other supporters in spreading the message of freedom and constitutionalism. You do NOT occupy countries, you do NOT go into war with countries without direct approval from congress. You go back to the gold standard and stop our economy from it's current recession. The government is going to be NO different with Obama and you're still going to get high gas prices, a shitty economy, and for those of you who believe terrorism is not government made; more terrorism. I don't understand why people can't respect our law, the Constitution of the United States. Stop your god damn bias on Obama and peek around other aspects. You're wrong about 95% of the garbage you said in this thread, and polls are bullshit. You just cream your pants over the "Hope and Change" slogan like everybody else.

wow. just...wow.

i especially liked this bit:

quote:

You go back to the gold standard and stop our economy from it's current recession

not only would returning to the gold standard increase the likelihood of recessions, it would also make them last longer and be more serious

*grabs popcorn in anticipation of renegade's impending arse kicking*

pk, you remind me a little of this chick



looks like she is full of fun and there sure is substance, but when you get down to business where it matters, its all bollocks!

You dont actually answer anything, you just tout whatever official "anti" slogan is going atm.

example:

quote:

not only would returning to the gold standard increase the likelihood of recessions, it would also make them last longer and be more serious

it may sound clever but really, it isnt, and you arent saying a thing in this whole line. Explain to us, why do you belive that another standard of money would likely cause problems, and what problems?

put simply, the gold standard makes it far harder for the government to play an economic role in the country. which is exactly what i just said

quote:

Consequences for the Magnitude of Business Cycles: Loss of control over economic policy. If the U.S. and a substantial number of other industrial economies adopted a gold standard, the U.S. would lose the ability to tune its economic policies to fit domestic conditions. * For example, in the spring of 1995 the dollar weakened against the yen. Under a gold standard, such a decline in the dollar would not have been allowed: instead the Federal Reserve would have raised interest rates considerably in order to keep the value of the dollar fixed at its gold parity, and a recession would probably have followed. Recessionary bias. Under a gold standard, the burden of adjustment is always placed on the "weak currency" country. * Countries seeing downward market pressure on the values of their currencies are forced to contract their economies and raise unemployment. * The gold standard imposes no equivalent adjustment burden on countries seeing upward market pressure on currency values. * Hence a deflationary bias which makes it likely that a gold standard regime will see a higher average unemployment rate than an alternative managed regime. The gold standard and the Great Depression. The current judgment of economic historians (see, for example, Barry J. Eichengreen, Golden Fetters) is that attachment to the gold standard played a major part in keeping governments from fighting the Great Depression, and was a major factor turning the recession of 1929-1931 into the Great Depression of 1931-1941. * Countries that were not on the gold standard in 1929--or that quickly abandoned the gold standard--by and large escaped the Great Depression * Countries that abandoned the gold standard in 1930 and 1931 suffered from the Great Depression, but escaped its worst ravages. * Countries that held to the gold standard through 1933 (like the United States) or 1936 (like France) suffered the worst from the Great Depression o Commitment to the gold standard prevented Federal Reserve action to expand the money supply in 1930 and 1931--and forced President Hoover into destructive attempts at budget-balancing in order to avoid a gold standard-generated run on the dollar. o Commitment to the gold standard left countries vulnerable to "runs" on their currencies--Mexico in January of 1995 writ very, very large. Such a run, and even the fear that there might be a future run, boosted unemployment and amplified business cycles during the gold standard era. o The standard interpretation of the Depression, dating back to Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz's Monetary History of the United States, is that the Federal Reserve could have but for some mysterious reason did not boost the money supply to cure the Depression; but Friedman and Schwartz do not stress the role played by the gold standard in tieing the Federal Reserve's hands--the "golden fetters" of Eichengreen. o Friedman was and is aware of the role played by the gold standard--hence his long time advocacy of floating exchange rates, the antithesis of the gold standard.

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Politic...ldstandard.html

but i wouldn't expect someone that believes in dismantling the central bank to understand. too busy being afraid of the boogieman, the new world order and the banking elite!

did you actually read any of it? Did you understand any of it? Or was it teh googlez first page when entering anti gold standard? Money can be anything we want it to be, how does feathers sound? The pages you just found is focusing on the gold but wants to maintain the current financial system, in other words. the article belive gold standards will fail because it wants to both whistle and have flour in the mouth. no go.

quote:

Loss of control over economic policy. If the U.S. and a substantial number of other industrial economies adopted a gold standard, the U.S. would lose the ability to tune its economic policies to fit domestic conditions.

not in a autarky. None of the problems the article arises would be in an autarky. And now that i know for sure that YOU dont know anything about this, closed autarky doesnt neccerily mean that you doesnt trade with other countries or people just that you limit it as to not fall pray for money speculants.

The whole page is deceptive in its goal from point one as money doesnt have to be gold, it has been suggested and it sure as hell is better than open economies. But small round rocks could do aswell, and have. It is the system behind of usury and creating wealth from nothing but promises to pay that we need to get rid of.

quote:

The gold standard and the Great Depression. The current judgment of economic historians (see, for example, Barry J. Eichengreen, Golden Fetters) is that attachment to the gold standard played a major part in keeping governments from fighting the Great Depression, and was a major factor turning the recession of 1929-1931 into the Great Depression of 1931-1941.

this guy disagrees..entirely infact, as does his whole institute. They suggests gold, but it is instead of rocks, because they want the fundamental system changed, and it is much needed.
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

If you dont understand why it is needed, please, in your own words explain inflasion.

quote:

but i wouldn't expect someone that believes in the dismantling of the central bank to understand.

so why should we keep the central banks? according to you, in your words? i belive you do know what youre talking about right? i mean, you wouldnt be speaking out of your ass now, and clinging on to whatever straw you can grab on to via google would you?

quote:

too busy being afraid of the boogieman, the new world order and the banking elite!

great, more fluff. so wheres the substance?, now we have seen that you know how to use google, and the copy paste function (which is good), ad hominem etc..

quote:

Originally posted by shapes Uhm. He didn't write those. And publically came out and said he did not.

It was a short newsletter published in his name for two decades. Even if you want to argue that he didn't "write" them himself (a naive claim to begin with), are you seriously trying to tell me that he didn't have any editorial control over the newsletters' content for that entire time?

quote:

Ron Paul supporters did more than any other supporters in spreading the message of freedom and constitutionalism.

Yep, freedom for everyone except for blacks and homosexuals. I suppose Ron Paul considers himself a strict constitutionalist because the last time someone like him could be described as a "libertarian" with a straight face was around the time the constitution was first penned.

quote:

You do NOT occupy countries, you do NOT go into war with countries without direct approval from congress.

Yeah, wow. Wherever will we find someone who shares that ideal once Ron Paul drops out?

quote:

You go back to the gold standard and stop our economy from it's current recession.

Haha, okay I'll bite. How would reverting to the gold-standard allieviate the recession?

quote:

Originally posted by celestial thug not in a autarky. None of the problems the article arises would be in an autarky. And now that i know for sure that YOU dont know anything about this, closed autarky doesnt neccerily mean that you doesnt trade with other countries or people just that you limit it as to not fall pray for money speculants.

But the value of gold - or any other hard commodity - is just as prone to supply / demand fluctuations as any currency is! Unless the whole world adopts the gold-standard, the global value of gold is going to continue to rise and fall based largely on speculation. What magical immunity does gold have from the principles of supply and demand that the US dollar doesn't?

And how are you going to "trade" from this autarky unless you acknowledge that your currency - whether its gold or the dollar - has a variable value relative to the currencies of the countries your going to be trading with? Are you going to mandate that they trade exclusively in gold too? What's that going to do for demand for (and therefore the value of) gold?

quote:

It is the system behind of usury and creating wealth from nothing but promises to pay that we need to get rid of.

Credit creation is a legitimate means of distributing wealth so long as the credit is ammassed on solid, reliable foundations. I agree that the US market has a problem with writing checks that it can't afford, but that's more a sign of poor management than of systemic market failure.

quote:

If you dont understand why it is needed, please, in your own words explain inflasion.

This should clear things up:

quote:

so why should we keep the central banks?

I suppose it performs exactly the same function as the federal gold bureau would in your libertarian utopia (i.e. to manage the supply and value of a given currency)?

quote:

But the value of gold - or any other hard commodity - is just as prone to supply / demand fluctuations as any currency is!

Who are talking about hard commodities. it is a total myth that gold represent any value, it does not represent any value other than one agreed upon by the marked place. Why, because gold is pretty much useless. So we have an imagined value for it, and this is the key point. money is an imagined entity, it can be anything, but the SYSTEM behind the money, the idea. Has to change, and gold has been suggested. Im not overly keen on the idea of Gold, for the same reasons you are, but as i said allready. youre whistling flour. A gold standard makes no sense if we pretty much keep the system as is, i agree.

quote:

And how are you going to "trade" from this autarky unless you acknowledge that your currency - whether its gold or the dollar - has a variable value relative to the currencies of the countries your going to be trading with?

again, money is an imagined entity, what really exchanged, is services and or goods, and money only represents a certain amount of either. You could say money is liquid representations of work hours and or efford.

quote:

Are you going to mandate that they trade exclusively in gold too? What's that going to do for demand for (and therefore the value of) gold?

whatever they please aslong as there is a mutually agreed upon exhcange of actual value taking place. Actual value isnt money obviously, unless money is made of something we concive to be worth something on its own, unlike paper and nickel. money has become nothing but a distraction.

quote:

Credit creation is a legitimate means of distributing wealth so long as the credit is ammassed on solid, reliable foundations.

[

which they arent and havent been since mid 1700's for europe, somewhat later for the states. The mad inlfation is a direct result of this way of trading. it is not trading in goods and servies but promises which are...well worthless.

quote:

I agree that the US market has a problem with writing checks that it can't afford, but that's more a sign of poor management than of systemic market failure.

nope, thats the whole world in that clap trap but a very few places, it is just blatantly obvious with the US atm. every money you borrow, whatever it is, undermindes the value of all the moneis allready present in the system if it is not backed by an agreed upon exchange of value, some insist gold is the magic solution, to me it makes little difference if it is gold or the actual services represented by "hours" instead of monies.

quote:

This should clear things up:

clear up what excactly?

quote:

I suppose it performs exactly the same function as the federal gold bureau would in your libertarian utopia (i.e. to manage the supply and value of a given currency)?

in "my libertarian utopia" what the fuck is wrong with you people constantly trying to smack people into a safebox, so you can safely handle them by saying to yourself "i know who he is, or is with". And no, that is not what a central bank does. Try again!

I think it can be boiled down to that gold proponents (whether they are fully aware of it or not) wants a full reserve system, instead of a fractional one. And that part of it i agree with fully. Either the money is backed by full actual agreed upon value, or it is a worthless piece of paper, metal, feather, cow dung, whatever.

It becomes especially worthless as moneys pass into the system, by you promising to repay them and nothing else. Yourr promise to repay the money, becomes "new money" that can be exchanged on the marked. Which is...fucking wrong!

you havent produced the goods to back up these monies now going into new investments, you only promised to produce them and thats why you borrowed the money to begin with. The goods backing up the money you just borrowed, does not excist, not as gold, not as land, nothing, it is a fiction entirely but it is sold and passed around like the real thing, effectively devaluating all other monies, obviously.

I know it can be hard to get such clear speak out of people who altso understand the system, but you will find that often they serve it either directly or through investments. Who wants to work against his own investments even if they are "shady" at best,


Most people seem to have a hard time getting their head around this particular one. You borrow a penny, and the sum of money in the system becomes a penny less worth, even tho the physical representation of that penny is now passing around as a penny.

quote:

Originally posted by celestial thug Who are talking about hard commodities. it is a total myth that gold represent any value, it does not represent any value other than one agreed upon by the marked place. Why, because gold is pretty much useless.

The utility of gold has nothing to do with the determination of its value. It is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it, hence the fluctuations in its price. There is nothing mysterious about this, and the same would be true if you substituted gold for any other asset, real or imagined.

If you wanted to fix the value of currency, you need to steadfastly control its supply, close it to international trade and peg its value to the supply of some other asset. This, interestingly, is how the communist Chinese fix (within certain parameters) the value of the yen against a basket of currencies. Is this the sort of system you're advocating?

quote:

So we have an imagined value for it, and this is the key point. money is an imagined entity, it can be anything, but the SYSTEM behind the money, the idea. Has to change, and gold has been suggested. Im not overly keen on the idea of Gold, for the same reasons you are, but as i said allready. youre whistling flour. A gold standard makes no sense if we pretty much keep the system as is, i agree.

Okay, you lost me. What is it exactly that you are arguing for, then, if you reject the fundemental tennets of Ron Paul's gold-standard? You can't just argue, without elaboration, in favour of "change" - isn't that what you're accusing the "Obamabots" of doing?

quote:

again, money is an imagined entity, what really exchanged, is services and or goods, and money only represents a certain amount of either. You could say money is liquid representations of work hours and or efford.

Yeah, which means that it has an actual value, regardless of how arbitrary the means of determining that value might be. $100 is worth 4 hours of my labour which is worth 30 bottles of coke. The relative price of these things may (indeed, will) fluctuate, but that is not to say that the employment of my labour, bottles of coke and the currency I use to intermediate the two won't always have an actual value with regards to each other!

quote:

whatever they please aslong as there is a mutually agreed upon exhcange of actual value taking place. Actual value isnt money obviously, unless money is made of something we concive to be worth something on its own, unlike paper and nickel. money has become nothing but a distraction.

Fine. So not money, not gold, not nickel, not paper - what then? What are we going to trade with? How are we going to ensure that the value of this "thing" isn't prone to fluctuations in value based on the laws of supply and demand?

quote:

which they arent and havent been since mid 1700's for europe, somewhat later for the states. The mad inlfation is a direct result of this way of trading. it is not trading in goods and servies but promises which are...well worthless.

So why not clamp down on the distribution of credit then, rather than overhauling the whole system? If credit was only issued on the grounds that it could be reliably repaid (which is exactly what the rational actor in a usuary system should be seeking in the first place!) what grounds would there be for a gold-standard?

quote:

I think it can be boiled down to that gold proponents (whether they are fully aware of it or not) wants a full reserve system, instead of a fractional one. And that part of it i agree with fully. Either the money is backed by full actual agreed upon value, or it is a worthless piece of paper, metal, feather, cow dung, whatever.

So under your system, the government couldn't spend money that it doesn't already have stored in a vault somewhere? How would it fund a war, then? How would it be able to use budgetry simulus to bring the economy out of recession (or - as was the case in the 1930s under the gold-standard - depression)?

For what it's worth, I agree with the principle that a government should not run unsustainable deficits. I agree with the principle of a balanced surplus-deficit cycle (surplus in good times, deficit in bad times), as implemented by the Clinton administration and my own government over the past couple of decades. I disagree strongly, as you do, with the unsustainable deficits run up during the Reagan and Bush II presidencies. But implementing a system that prevents deficit spending - which I think is what you're advocating here - takes away the power of the government (or the federal reserve) to manage the supply of money in an economy in order to correct economic faults that the market cannot. As pkc has already posted, the depression - which was only allieviated by Keynesian deficits - is a good example of this.

quote:

Most people seem to have a hard time getting their head around this particular one. You borrow a penny, and the sum of money in the system becomes a penny less worth, even tho the physical representation of that penny is now passing around as a penny.

You're right, I am having a hard time getting my head around that. Please explain.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.