Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nemesis6 on March 02, 2012, 11:14:39 am
-
I've noticed something when debating his supporters -- The entire foundation of their support seems to rest on the fact that he's against interventionism and, sometimes, against "war on drugs". Happily, they ignore that he's a Neoconfederate anti-federalist whose ideological foundation is laid by the John Birch Society and various other ilks like Alex Jones and Lew Rockwell. It doesn't matter to them that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, or that his We the People Act "Forbids all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex unions, sexual practices, and establishment of religion"... it's like they're blinded by his "liberty" rhetoric. He keeps throwing these bones to both the people who are scared of big government, and at the same time, he can appease the religious right. I just don't get how people on the left can't seem to see through this facade. Another example: He's against gay marriage, but gives the reason that he doesn't think the federal government should be involved in the marriage business. Next thing you know, he supports the Defence Of Marriage Act, which codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages at a federal level. Again, he waves the "liberty" banner, blinding his leftist supporters, and appeasing his homophobic republican constituency as well.
Looking at this from abroad is weird, hearing an American politician talk about nullification, states' rights, and the evil of the federal government, because they fought a war over this, and Paul's confederate darlings lost. On top of all of that, it leaves me absolutely perplexed and confuzzled that a person doing this could even be remotely electable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3PZSLjhmA
Sorry about the tone of this message, but I'd really like you guys' opinion on this guy.
-
Obvious troll bait is obvious. It's not even fun troll bait. Try harder.
-
Atleast he has a better sense of what is going on in the world then Rick Santorum...
-
Atleast he has a better sense of what is going on in the world then Rick Santorum...
That's the weird thing - Paul seems to ride on the perceived failure of others, like Obama, but also on the prospect of the potential victory of the really really crazy ones: Rick Santorum like you mentioned, Newt Gingrich, etc.
One rationalization I've seen for this is that if some of his other policies really are that unpopular, one needn't worry about them because they wouldn't have a chance of being passed and so on.
-
Even if you don't agree with his opinions about some things, you gotta give him credit that he won't enforce such ideas and will let states, and individuals, choose things. I certainly don't think anything's wrong with him, he's been a consistent congressman with a very clean voting record. Best to do is to do some independent research, read, watch what he says, compare it to the rest. There's never a fully perfect candidate that you can 100% agree with, unless you run yourself and vote for yourself. ;)
-
From what I've seen of him, he does seem to be very forthright and honest about his opinions, a trait that is rare in politics. I don't agree with all he has to say, but he does at least provide his own opinion on why he says them. His supporters and detractors have actually made his shadow larger than his actual presence, but that's how politics works.
I don't think Ron Paul would make a good President, because he's spent too long being rigid that he would struggle to learn how to flex, and that is a vital skill in a changing world, but I do think he is in the unique position of being both vilified far more than he deserves and also being put on a pedestal the same amount.
-
Ron Paul has approximately ten good ideas, wrapped up in wall-to-wall Great Galloping Insanity.
-
I think the problem is, he sticks to his guns, that's been his policy for the last 2 decades, pick a position and absolutely, resolutely and defiantly stick to it which, as odd as it may seem is pretty detrimental to a political career. The real skill in politics is not a question of using a stick and a carrot, but more about finding a carrot that looks suspiciously like a stick to those who want to see it that way. As you said in fewer words, 'doing what's needed' may be the ultimate goal, but simply leaping in and imposing a load of new practices on the corporate US would be viewed as insanity, the road to fixing things isn't to hit stuff you don't like, but to give it a good enough reason to stop.
-
From what I've seen of him, he does seem to be very forthright and honest about his opinions, a trait that is rare in politics. I don't agree with all he has to say, but he does at least provide his own opinion on why he says them. His supporters and detractors have actually made his shadow larger than his actual presence, but that's how politics works.
I don't think Ron Paul would make a good President, because he's spent too long being rigid that he would struggle to learn how to flex, and that is a vital skill in a changing world, but I do think he is in the unique position of being both vilified far more than he deserves and also being put on a pedestal the same amount.
I don't know about that. I would like a President with a backbone--especially when they actually try to protect our rights. We had jellyfish like Bush (his entire foreign policy) and Obama (on all of his civil rights campaign promises) in office for the last 11 years now. I don't want someone like Romney or Santorum or Gingrich either--Romney has been caught flip-flopping many times on many issues, Santorum admits to playing D.C. games (and I think his views on presidential authority especially in connection to the legislation of morality are very dangerous), and Gingrich was the first Speaker ever formally reprimanded. While Gingrich's reprimand could have been purely political (Nancy Pelosi was on that committee, after all), I do not trust him any more than Romney.
That basically leaves Obama and Paul. Obama failed on many of what I think were his most important campaign promises. Paul, on the other hand, has a 20+ year record of votes--perhaps the longest & most consistent record of any sitting Congressperson. While I don't agree with all his points, I agree with many more of them than Santorum or Gingrich. I can't agree with much from Romney because he's run a mostly content-free campaign.
Paul's flip-flopped on one thing--capital punishment. The reason he gave for that is because he believes that minorities are sentenced to death far too frequently. Some of those have also been found to be innocent after their deaths.
-
The problem he would face is approximately the same one Obama faces, I think. The fact that it is not simply the Senators that he would have to get his ideas past, but also the deeply entwined Corporate interests of the US Banks and Stock Market, as well as probably not sitting too comfortably with the Military or Environmental lobbyists either.
Without being prepared to at least make a few sacrifices to earn external support, I think he would have a hard time getting anything done. Not his fault personally, any more than Obama is really to blame for his failures, but that is what the system has become. Ron Paul is an idealist, and I actually think on some subjects he genuinely understands the US Founding Doctrines far better than most Senators, but if he gained the power of Presidency, I don't think he would be able to do many of the things he feels need to be done. He would, I think, end up in much the same boat as Obama, crippled by Bureaucracy and left with a lot of voters who feel vaguely disappointed.
-
Well I can't really comment that much, for one being from Finland.
But I can say it would be a nice change to see a president of the United States who doesn't seem to flip-flop on every issue. Even if as president he would be running against huge odds, at least from that experience it could be said what exactly is the problem with modern USA democracy against the influence of corporate power.
-
Libertarians, in the case of the modern American definition of Liberarianism, are people who are vehemently opposed to tyranny in theory but are fine with in practice. Even old-school right-libertarians like Hayek accepted the role of the state in protecting the free market from monopolistic attacks. The modern ones are basically actively advocating de-facto feudalism. It would be another thing if they actually took Libertarianism seriously. It would be fantastic actually.
"A consistent libertarian must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery, which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer."
-
All true Libertarians like haggis.
-
The problem he would face is approximately the same one Obama faces, I think. The fact that it is not simply the Senators that he would have to get his ideas past, but also the deeply entwined Corporate interests of the US Banks and Stock Market, as well as probably not sitting too comfortably with the Military or Environmental lobbyists either.
Without being prepared to at least make a few sacrifices to earn external support, I think he would have a hard time getting anything done. Not his fault personally, any more than Obama is really to blame for his failures, but that is what the system has become. Ron Paul is an idealist, and I actually think on some subjects he genuinely understands the US Founding Doctrines far better than most Senators, but if he gained the power of Presidency, I don't think he would be able to do many of the things he feels need to be done. He would, I think, end up in much the same boat as Obama, crippled by Bureaucracy and left with a lot of voters who feel vaguely disappointed.
The type of bureaucracy Paul would be most limited by is that of built-up federal agencies. Passing bills that would redefine the role of various departments or agencies or even dismantle them would be tough, especially considering each party's sacred cows. I don't think he'd be worried about reelection at all--he'd probably even step down--either by resigning his office to the Vice President or refusing nomination for reelection. Even if he ends up in the same boat as Obama, he'd play things very differently and I doubt he'd stop speaking publicly about the issues, instead using the bully pulpit for better or for worse.
Look--he's been in office 12 terms and he's still one of the least welcome people in DC. He's stuck to his guns--an idealist as though he may be, he's been tested many times and passed with flying colors. If some other Neocon had as consistent a voting record as Paul's, they'd already have cinched the GOP's nomination. In selecting a nominee, he's checked every box except Status Quo--a far better record than his 3 competitors.
-
It's all well and good to "cede rights to the states and individuals" but then you realize that most civil liberty protections are held at the federal level. Some states would continue protecting women's rights and basic sufferage. . . but does anyone really think that civil rights would go UP under Paul
-
It's all well and good to "cede rights to the states and individuals" but then you realize that most civil liberty protections are held at the federal level. Some states would continue protecting women's rights and basic sufferage. . . but does anyone really think that civil rights would go UP under Paul
The right to vote is absolutely protected. All citizens (18+) not convicted of felonies or in an active rebellion have the right to vote. And further, which civil liberties protections are you talking about? Society has changed--we're not the 1960s anymore. While some racists would crawl out of the woodwork to go to a "whites only" business, by in large the opposite would happen--you'd have people protesting that business and its customers and partners. Any optional relationships would probably be severed as well. Right now, I think the real issue is protection against the government. So much legislation has worn down our protections--just look at how DHS/TSA has advanced in the last decade. And what do they have to show for it? The TSA at least never foiled actual terrorist plots--those plots were foiled by the CIA, FBI, or the terrorists themselves. Further, look at the PATRIOT Act and its many extensions. Then look at bills like NDAA 2012 that codify or reaffirm language used in past bills that infringe on such basic concepts as a timely trial and due process.
I don't know if civil rights would go UP under Paul, but I certainly know they wouldn't go DOWN. Our rights were eroded under Bush. Santorum supported it then and still supports it now. Our rights are being eroded under Obama. Romney is silent; Gingrich endorses such actions.
-
the reason people are constantly disappointed by presidents is because the american president has very little power to actually push through a legislative agenda; this is how the system is designed
ronpaul would be no different, possibly actually even less effective
-
the reason people are constantly disappointed by presidents is because the american president has very little power to actually push through a legislative agenda; this is how the system is designed
ronpaul would be no different, possibly actually even less effective
I'm still more disappointed by their broken veto pens. One past president I admire is Grover Cleveland--who vetoed a LOT of legislation. Hundreds of bills, in fact. The President can only veto, the Vice President can only break ties, but ultimately our representatives are there to represent us--not their own interests or the interests of their lobbyist friends.
-
Whenever someone talks about Ron Paul, the first and only thing I say is:
Pon Raul.
Then I proceed to ignore the possible Pauldroid.
-
It's all well and good to "cede rights to the states and individuals" but then you realize that most civil liberty protections are held at the federal level. Some states would continue protecting women's rights and basic sufferage. . . but does anyone really think that civil rights would go UP under Paul
The right to vote is absolutely protected. All citizens (18+) not convicted of felonies or in an active rebellion have the right to vote. And further, which civil liberties protections are you talking about? Society has changed--we're not the 1960s anymore. While some racists would crawl out of the woodwork to go to a "whites only" business, by in large the opposite would happen--you'd have people protesting that business and its customers and partners. Any optional relationships would probably be severed as well. Right now, I think the real issue is protection against the government. So much legislation has worn down our protections--just look at how DHS/TSA has advanced in the last decade. And what do they have to show for it? The TSA at least never foiled actual terrorist plots--those plots were foiled by the CIA, FBI, or the terrorists themselves. Further, look at the PATRIOT Act and its many extensions. Then look at bills like NDAA 2012 that codify or reaffirm language used in past bills that infringe on such basic concepts as a timely trial and due process.
I don't know if civil rights would go UP under Paul, but I certainly know they wouldn't go DOWN. Our rights were eroded under Bush. Santorum supported it then and still supports it now. Our rights are being eroded under Obama. Romney is silent; Gingrich endorses such actions.
His whole basis is to severely curtail federal power, so while laws would still be on the books, enforcement would not be.
That is, in a theoretical world where presidents did have significant legislative power.
-
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
-
the reason people are constantly disappointed by presidents is because the american president has very little power to actually push through a legislative agenda; this is how the system is designed
ronpaul would be no different, possibly actually even less effective
Seriously. It's enough to make me despair: sometimes I think the American public doesn't want a republic. They want a King. Trying to keep track of more than one Important Politician is obviously too much work.
That said, I'd vote for RP in a general election over any of the other main candidates. I don't particularly like any of them, but Paul at least raises issues that are important to me and ignored by everyone else. I'd love to see those issues taken more seriously.
-
Atleast he has a better sense of what is going on in the world then Rick Santorum...
So has toasted bread... should we nominate it ?:)
-
Atleast he has a better sense of what is going on in the world then Rick Santorum...
So has toasted bread... should we nominate it ?:)
I think you guys just ought to vote Obama again.
-
Atleast he has a better sense of what is going on in the world then Rick Santorum...
So has toasted bread... should we nominate it ?:)
I think you guys just ought to vote Obama again.
And be happy with your new pro-war Democratic party.
-
war is an american institution. why do so many people want to put a stop to it?
-
And be happy with your new pro-war Democratic party.
Up until about 1970, the Democrats were always the party of foreign interventionism. The Republicans were primarily isolationist, really up until the Bush Bunch.
-
And be happy with your new pro-war Democratic party.
Up until about 1970, the Democrats were always the party of foreign interventionism. The Republicans were primarily isolationist, really up until the Bush Bunch.
Except, there are many degrees in foreign interventionism. Ultimately, my problem with foreign interventions is two-fold. The first is that our military actions are subsidized only by the US taxpayer and our debtors. We aren't compensated for the costs of the missions, much less the loss of our soldiers' lives. The second is that there is no such thing as a free lunch--those that want a free (blood & money) revolution via the American military, NATO, the UN, or any other organization... they don't really own their own revolution or the results. That also means that, if or when the regime fails, they'll blame outsiders for interfering.
-
the reason people are constantly disappointed by presidents is because the american president has very little power to actually push through a legislative agenda; this is how the system is designed
ronpaul would be no different, possibly actually even less effective
Seriously. It's enough to make me despair: sometimes I think the American public doesn't want a republic. They want a King. Trying to keep track of more than one Important Politician is obviously too much work.
That said, I'd vote for RP in a general election over any of the other main candidates. I don't particularly like any of them, but Paul at least raises issues that are important to me and ignored by everyone else. I'd love to see those issues taken more seriously.
What are these issues? Fleet-footed negroes? Crushing the separation of church and state? Ripping off constitutional protections and replacing them with pseudo-feudal loonie bull****? Voting against government to stop dealing with Janjaweed militias? Posing with Stormfront co-founders? Issuing own riders to bills, then voting "No" even though the bill is going to pass?
Moving back to gold currency? Hating on abortion? Removal of state bureaus that, for example, make sure tens of thousands people don't die of poisoned milk? Blocking governmental family planning?
Capital punishment? Banning all public schooling?
So what are the important things you value so much over all of this? If you think everyone's similar, you can go ahead and point at some Democratic candidate's part where he wants to abolish constitutional protection on federal level.
-
Every time I see this guys name I think of RuPaul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuPaul)
:wakka:
-
the reason people are constantly disappointed by presidents is because the american president has very little power to actually push through a legislative agenda; this is how the system is designed
ronpaul would be no different, possibly actually even less effective
Seriously. It's enough to make me despair: sometimes I think the American public doesn't want a republic. They want a King. Trying to keep track of more than one Important Politician is obviously too much work.
That said, I'd vote for RP in a general election over any of the other main candidates. I don't particularly like any of them, but Paul at least raises issues that are important to me and ignored by everyone else. I'd love to see those issues taken more seriously.
What are these issues? Fleet-footed negroes? Crushing the separation of church and state? Ripping off constitutional protections and replacing them with pseudo-feudal loonie bull****? Voting against government to stop dealing with Janjaweed militias? Posing with Stormfront co-founders? Issuing own riders to bills, then voting "No" even though the bill is going to pass?
Moving back to gold currency? Hating on abortion? Removal of state bureaus that, for example, make sure tens of thousands people don't die of poisoned milk? Blocking governmental family planning?
Capital punishment? Banning all public schooling?
So what are the important things you value so much over all of this? If you think everyone's similar, you can go ahead and point at some Democratic candidate's part where he wants to abolish constitutional protection on federal level.
You come across as being very angry (as opposed to calm and calculated) as well as scared what will happen if there's no monolithic state to watch over you. I don't think you understand the ideas that Ron Paul and the Founding Fathers try to bring forth, the points they try to make to preserve the rights and freedom of the people.
Freedom is also all about being responsible for yourself and your actions, to not have anyone else deciding for you what you can and cannot do with your own life, that you don't need to constantly defend your actions to a state that tries too hard to keep you safe, taking away liberty in the process.
It's easy to dismiss a person and discredit one in your mind, and that's also your own personal right, but I wouldn't suggest claiming such ideas as fact without incontrovertible facts. Dealing in absolutes like "Banning all public schooling" shows that you're not fully aware of what impact the Department of Education has on the quality of education, and that you can have public schooling without such a bureaucracy.
Lastly, you can be sure the mainstream media would be right on top of it if any of what you said about Ron Paul's ideas or plans were true, since it seems they already picked the GOP candidate for the people (Romney) yet they're forced to treat Ron Paul with more and more respect. For this reason you may need to revisit your statements by researching more, asking for clarification, put your mind in the position of 'what if I was running for president, what would I do?', that kind of thing.
-
You come across as being very angry, as well as scared what will happen if there's no monolithic state to watch over you.
i touch the shining tip of the interceptor missile
Freedom is also all about being responsible for yourself and your actions, to not have anyone else deciding for you what you can and cannot do with your own life, that you don't need to constantly defend your actions to a state that tries too hard to keep you safe, taking away liberty in the process.
oh okay
For this reason you may need to revisit your statements by researching more, asking for clarification, put your mind in the position of 'what if I was running for president, what would I do?', that kind of thing.
it's so good to have this useful advice on these difficult topics. if only we had considered researching, asking for clarification, and pretending we were running for president, we too would understand what freedom is, ron paul, et cetera
-
It's that I often see that people have misconceptions about people or subjects, myself included in the past, that because of hearing a certain person say something it automatically becomes truth instead of finding out what was actually meant by a statement or the reason for responding a certain way. That's why, in my opinion, it's important to review it, place yourself in a person's or position's shoes so that you can understand them better.
-
Freedom is also all about being responsible for yourself and your actions, to not have anyone else deciding for you what you can and cannot do with your own life, that you don't need to constantly defend your actions to a state that tries too hard to keep you safe, taking away liberty in the process.
Yeah we re seeing how that worked out after decades of massive deregulation of the financial markets.
The economy at this point is still pretty much a nuclear reactor on the verge of going critical... and you would leave it to its own devices, really? Because that worked so well in the past? Because the people involved acted so "responsibly" that they repeatedly threathen to crash the whole system in the pursuit of personal and corporate greed? So "responsibly" that common sense and long term thinking gets outright ignored in favor of the short term buck?
Ultimately the state has certain responsibilities and functions in a free market democracy. If the state fails to provide those functions then you won t have your free market democracy for long.
Capitalism without moderating influences and limiting frameworks will ultimately always gravitate towards an accumulation of capital/wealth on the top that, if left unchecked, would result in the rise of a de facto Aristocracy.
-
It's that I often see that people have misconceptions about people or subjects, myself included in the past, that because of hearing a certain person say something it automatically becomes truth instead of finding out what was actually meant by a statement or the reason for responding a certain way. That's why, in my opinion, it's important to review it, place yourself in a person's or position's shoes so that you can understand them better.
You live in a population that is unnaturally large and a collapse of society would result in a large percentage of people dying out. That is a fact. I don't think Ron Paul would actually cause this if he became president, although he might try, but I'm sick of hearing about this 'personal responsibility' non-sense that Randians keep talking about.
(People will do what people will do, but it's still in decision makers and really everyone's best interests to keep the population from exploding all over the place)
Now really, I'm in favor of religious institutions having to pay their dues because really, they get off quite easy in the United States, and the whole western world. There is also the undeniable fact that everyone is better off if the population is kept comfortably stable, which is by far a more sensible argument.
Really James [Mars] - Have you ever even heard of personal responsibility? Let alone accountability...
It's that attitude that doesn't make any sense. The whole purpose of society is that every individual, or nearly every individual, ends up better off than if they lived in a non-society.
-
You come across as being very angry
Anyone who isn't angry confronted with screed in support of Ron Paul is either Nuke, not very good at this whole predictable human behavior thing, or irredeemably dense.
Only one of these can be corrected.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kQES16MmFNI#!
Made me smile. Still... Randian idiocy will propably never die out. It s compelling and preys on the minds of intellectuals when they are young and vulnerable,
telling all the "right things" to someone who is at the most insecure stage of their life.
It s kinda like Religion that way... /thread. Oups. :)
-
Lastly, you can be sure the mainstream media would be right on top of it if any of what you said about Ron Paul's ideas or plans were true, since it seems they already picked the GOP candidate for the people (Romney) yet they're forced to treat Ron Paul with more and more respect. For this reason you may need to revisit your statements by researching more, asking for clarification, put your mind in the position of 'what if I was running for president, what would I do?', that kind of thing.
So you have absolutely no idea of the candidate you support! Congratulations! You have no basic knowledge of Ron Paul. Here, let me help you by digging out these random snippets about Ron Paul. BTW this is not even touching on many of his issues and I couldn't be bothered to dig up all of the racists crap from 1980s, but here you go. Let me quote DAT LIST for u
Fleet-footed negroes?
A bad source, this one only has Newt Gingrich in it (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/newt-gingrich-presses-ron-paul-to-explain-racist-newsletters/)
Crushing the separation of church and state?
Source (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)
Ripping off constitutional protections and replacing them with pseudo-feudal loonie bull****?
Read the bill! (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958.IH:)
Voting against government to stop dealing with Janjaweed militias?
Read the results (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.180:)
Posing with Stormfront co-founders?
Oh look (http://blogs4conservatives.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/rp-and-db.jpg?w=500&h=375)
Issuing own riders to bills, then voting "No" even though the bill is going to pass?
Seriously lolz (http://www.americanindependent.com/160697/ron-paul-one-of-only-four-house-republicans-to-request-earmarks-for-2011-budget)
Moving back to gold currency?
A simple search "ron paul gold standard" would probably have helped you there (http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-02-01/going-back-to-the-gold-standard/)
Hating on abortion?
Oh it's a bad source, it's only his own campaign site (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/)
Removal of state bureaus that, for example, make sure tens of thousands people don't die of poisoned milk?
All right, this was a mistake. Ron Paul does not specifically hate FDA. If only I could put my finger on why this article by Ron Paul still feels somewhat suspicious. What could it be? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul288.html)
Blocking governmental family planning?
Yeah. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-1548)
Capital punishment?
All right. Ron Paul only opposes federal death penalty. He's for states to decide it!
Banning all public schooling?
This of course depends on the timeline. In 1990s Paul was still very much into banning public schooling. http://www.ronpaularchive.com/1998/02/national-testing-averted-but-education-woes-still-unresolved/ Now he only wants to remove federal control, public student loans, and eliminate Department of Education http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/10/17/ron-paul-1-trillion-cut-plan-targets-five-cabinet-departments (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/10/17/ron-paul-1-trillion-cut-plan-targets-five-cabinet-departments)
And finally:
You come across as being very angry (as opposed to calm and calculated) as well as scared what will happen if there's no monolithic state to watch over you. I don't think you understand the ideas that Ron Paul and the Founding Fathers try to bring forth, the points they try to make to preserve the rights and freedom of the people.
Freedom is also all about being responsible for yourself and your actions, to not have anyone else deciding for you what you can and cannot do with your own life, that you don't need to constantly defend your actions to a state that tries too hard to keep you safe, taking away liberty in the process.
So, it has been proven that you do not know anything your candidate of choice actually votes for and believes. You can still act condescending towards someone who has dug up Ron Pauls antics from late 2011. You manage to blow hot air rhetoric and completely evade questions. You cannot pinpoint any single political position of Paul's you agree with, but you can pretty much claim me a liar.
Do us and yourself a favour and read about your political candidate the next time you decide to support him. And don't waltz in here and assume everyone is as ignorant as you are.
Thank you. Anything else?
-
Do us and yourself a favour and read about your political candidate the next time you decide to support him. And don't waltz in here and assume everyone is as ignorant as you are.
Thank you. Anything else?
Frankly sometimes I have to wonder how much of Ron Pauls popularity comes from a couple of youtube videos that are flying around where he simply appears to be able to make a strong argument against *something* or *someone* while many of his political opponents fail at formulating any coherent or logical argument at all.
I.e. kinda like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVyhIGkusnI
So for some people it might be a matter of voting for the guy who "looks good while making an argument on youtube"... rather than the other guy(s) who are providing involuntary youtube comedy? lol.
-
Frankly sometimes I have to wonder how much of Ron Pauls popularity comes from a couple of youtube videos that are flying around where he simply appears to be able to make a strong argument against *something* or *someone* while many of his political opponents fail at formulating any coherent or logical argument at all.
I.e. kinda like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVyhIGkusnI
So for some people it might be a matter of voting for the guy who "looks good while making an argument on youtube"... rather than the other guy(s) who are providing involuntary youtube comedy? lol.
You raise a good point. Paul is a very coherent speaker that sticks to his ideas (be they good or bat**** insane). His foreign policy stance in particular tends to appeal to a lot of the younger generation as he is the only Republican candidate in recent memory to acknowledge that part of the reason for a generalized hatred of the United States in the Middle East comes from the fact that the United States (among others) has been continuously ****ing with their political leadership for the last 60+ years. It's not a groundbreaking idea, but it gains him traction because the rest of the Republican bunch has a really distorted view of world history and international relations.
Like NGTM-1R said, Paul has a few good ideas and the rest are looney-tunes, but those few give him political traction when he talks about them, particularly because he appears to be the only candidate with a coherent argument that does not sound like a babbling baboon in the debates.
-
Do us and yourself a favour and read about your political candidate the next time you decide to support him. And don't waltz in here and assume everyone is as ignorant as you are.
Thank you. Anything else?
Frankly sometimes I have to wonder how much of Ron Pauls popularity comes from a couple of youtube videos that are flying around where he simply appears to be able to make a strong argument against *something* or *someone* while many of his political opponents fail at formulating any coherent or logical argument at all.
I.e. kinda like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVyhIGkusnI
So for some people it might be a matter of voting for the guy who "looks good while making an argument on youtube"... rather than the other guy(s) who are providing involuntary youtube comedy? lol.
Just google for Paul's proposed subsidies for shrimp industry. It's kinda weird.
Finally you will find Free Republic discussions about shrimp's, Paul's principles and 400 million dollars of earmarks. That's when I stopped. For now.
ed: Yes, I think most of the Paul's votes are more like protest vote against the establishment. Not very well-informed, though, seeing how many Paulites have little to no grasp of Paul's actual policies, his beliefs or even libertarism. I just read a diatribe by a Chicago school libertarian who said that Paul "libertarianism" has practically destroyed libertarianism as a serious political force in USA. Can't say I'm disappointed :D
-
I just read a diatribe by a Chicago school libertarian who said that Paul "libertarianism" has practically destroyed libertarianism as a serious political force in USA. Can't say I'm disappointed :D
I would be (if I were an American). Libertarianism (or parts of it, it's a very loose philosophical coalition to begin with) is considerably more palatable than some of the policies the current GOP contenders are fielding.
Consider that libertarian politics is really the only political force in the US that bases a chunk of their policies on classic liberalism. Given the choice between politics influenced by the likes of Mill and the principle of harm as a basis for law, or Santorum and his bat**** nutty ideas regarding contraception, abortion, and a host of other socially-conservative principles that a government really has no business in, I'll take the libertarian side, thanks.
-
I would be (if I were an American). Libertarianism (or parts of it, it's a very loose philosophical coalition to begin with) is considerably more palatable than some of the policies the current GOP contenders are fielding.
It's also better than fascism, but it doesn't really make it a good political force. Sure, it's good and nice if you have enough capital to ensure the stability around you. For other people? Nyah.
Consider that libertarian politics is really the only political force in the US that bases a chunk of their policies on classic liberalism.
How so? It can be argued that every single capitalist nation which has as it's modus operandi a practical minimalization of state intervention has it's intellectual basis on liberalism. Even social democratic parties quite often quote classical liberal ideals. Adam Smith himself was for relatively strong state and market intervention to ensure the fairness and rule of the law. It's just what pretty much every single nation does these days. Sure, if we draw an arbitrary line somewhere between then and now, and call one part of it "classical" and the other one "modern"..
Libertarianism in America is more often than not anarcho-capitalism or some form of minarchism. American-style libertarianism, as preached by wonderful little institutions like Ludvig von Mises institute, usually rejects science and empirism, instead falling on nebulous wordplay and tautologies.
Given the choice between politics influenced by the likes of Mill and the principle of harm as a basis for law, or Santorum and his bat**** nutty ideas regarding contraception, abortion, and a host of other socially-conservative principles that a government really has no business in, I'll take the libertarian side, thanks.
I do not understand why you stage this question as a dilemma. It is not. One is not in any way obliged to choose between Santorum's and Paul's policies and ignore anything else.
-
It's also better than fascism, but it doesn't really make it a good political force. Sure, it's good and nice if you have enough capital to ensure the stability around you. For other people? Nyah.
The point was that a libertarian influence is a lot better than some of the other policies the GOP loves to field.
How so? It can be argued that every single capitalist nation which has as it's modus operandi a practical minimalization of state intervention has it's intellectual basis on liberalism. Even social democratic parties quite often quote classical liberal ideals. Adam Smith himself was for relatively strong state and market intervention to ensure the fairness and rule of the law. It's just what pretty much every single nation does these days. Sure, if we draw an arbitrary line somewhere between then and now, and call one part of it "classical" and the other one "modern"..
Libertarianism in America is more often than not anarcho-capitalism or some form of minarchism. American-style libertarianism, as preached by wonderful little institutions like Ludvig von Mises institute, usually rejects science and empirism, instead falling on nebulous wordplay and tautologies.
There are big chunks of classical liberalism missing from serious conversation in US politics. Utilitarian discussion about the harm principle is a big one, and it's absence has propagated the foolishness surrounding the war on drugs and a variety of other criminalized "vice" offenses that plug up the courts and don't actually do anything to address real crime. Sadly, the libertarian grassroots movement (e.g. where Paul actually gets his support among young people) is the only political force that seems to recognize this.
Also, if your last paragraph concerning American Libertarianism is true (and I'm not in a position to argue it either way), it would appear that the majority of those individuals don't actually know where libertarianism came from or what it's principles truly are. Libertarianism is derived from classic liberalism, and empiricism and science are the very basis of those philosophical approaches. Don't tar-and-feather the political philosophy as a whole for what a few ignorants in the US are trying to turn it into.
One is not in any way obliged to choose between Santorum's and Paul's policies and ignore anything else.
Wasn't saying you were. I was just saying that I'd be much happier to see Santorum's bull**** exorcised from US politics before I'd like to see the libertarian spectrum eliminated.
-
The point was that a libertarian influence is a lot better than some of the other policies the GOP loves to field.
Fair point. However, I state that Republican right-wing machine has adopted many anarchocapitalist terms and uses them. The libertarianism as we speak of it is highly capitalist and rightist. It's also a rhetoric horse ridden by Republicans around the place. Ron Paul is just an example of it.
There are big chunks of classical liberalism missing from serious conversation in US politics. Utilitarian discussion about the harm principle is a big one, and it's absence has propagated the foolishness surrounding the war on drugs and a variety of other criminalized "vice" offenses that plug up the courts and don't actually do anything to address real crime. Sadly, the libertarian grassroots movement (e.g. where Paul actually gets his support among young people) is the only political force that seems to recognize this.
That is also correct. However, one has to realize that discussion of crime, victims and especially marijuana is widespread among the splintered left of USA, and the US political discussion is heavily skewed to right when compared to other relatively similar nations.
For example: less regulation, more military intervention. Less governmental interference, especially when it comes to bussiness - however, laws based on subjective morality are a-ok. The republican and partially democratic lines are both completely insane. However, they are the only two mainstream political narratives that have any float. Libertarianism as I spoke of it is just an anarcho-capitalist tool.
Also, if your last paragraph concerning American Libertarianism is true (and I'm not in a position to argue it either way), it would appear that the majority of those individuals don't actually know where libertarianism came from or what it's principles truly are. Libertarianism is derived from classic liberalism, and empiricism and science are the very basis of those philosophical approaches. Don't tar-and-feather the political philosophy as a whole for what a few ignorants in the US are trying to turn it into.
Isn't that a no true scotsman, though, when it comes to this discussion? Words have meanings, but a sociological phenomenon is described as much by actor than by dictionary definitions. As long as the topic of the discussion is Ron Paul and the context is US one, it is quite safe to discuss the exact phenomenon from US political point of view. mind you, the libertarian bent in the rest of the west is pretty much 1. defined by US political scene and 2. confined to internet.
It seems to me that libertarianism, as well as socialism, has extremely difficult to discuss, because the contexts and practices differ wildly depending on the discussion and its subject itself.
If we really want to discuss libertarianism as a wider political ideology instead of Paulite insanity, I would happily discuss it. However, if we were to engage in such a debate, I would like to know just what aspect of libertarianism we are discussing and what are the defining ideologies.
Unless it's praxeology. Then I just quote von Däniken.
-
I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything here; well, other than the demise of libertarianism in the US being a good thing, but I think we're both coming from the same perspective and just coming to different conclusions.
-
I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything here; well, other than the demise of libertarianism in the US being a good thing, but I think we're both coming from the same perspective and just coming to different conclusions.
Yes. I, personally, have little objection to the rarest of the rare - left-wing libertarianism. It is often very similar to modern socialist thinking and as such I have no personal objection with it. Many aspects of left libertarianism are 1:1 compatible to modern western socialist views. They both mix the idea of large personal freedom with powerful state that is directed to provide equal basic welfare or chance to benefit for it's people. I have to admit that I have little knowledge of how the two differ when it comes to natural monopolies. The discussion simply hasn't been relevant for the last... 12 years or so?
The political field of my country is such that anarcho-capitalists and other right-wing libertarians flock into... certain political parties, and the leftist, socially liberal and pro-personal freedom crowd flows into either the Green or the Left party. Left-wing libertarianism is non-existant as a personal identification in here (most of them are socialist in our context), and it is also very quiet on the internet. I would believe that in the USA most left-leaning libertarians would be associated with different off-the-map leftist political ideologies instead of democratic party. Paleolibertarians are Tea Party/Republican fodder.
The libertarianism I have most problem with is the weirdo austrian school. It is also the most prevalent school of libertarian thought in the internet, which is why I feel so strongly about it.
-
So you have absolutely no idea of the candidate you support! Congratulations! You have no basic knowledge of Ron Paul. Here, let me help you by digging out these random snippets about Ron Paul. BTW this is not even touching on many of his issues and I couldn't be bothered to dig up all of the racists crap from 1980s, but here you go. Let me quote DAT LIST for u
So your favored style of argument is to throw out a dozen mischaracterizations, malignments, and personal attacks, hoping that some of them will stick. Congratulations, you've mastered the art of internet bluster. You may be able to intimidate people in this manner, but you're not doing intellectual honesty any favors.
Fleet-footed negroes?
A bad source, this one only has Newt Gingrich in it (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/newt-gingrich-presses-ron-paul-to-explain-racist-newsletters/)
Those newsletters were ghost-written. Ron Paul didn't write them himself and every time they've been brought up during the campaign, he's disavowed the specific sentiments expressed in those quotes. It's important to realize, though, that there are only about a dozen such quotes throughout the entire series of newsletters. Every time the media roll out a different news article, they always recycle the same few quotes.
Crushing the separation of church and state?
Source (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)
The phrase "separation of church and state" simply means that no state organization should have authority over any church function, and no church organization should have authority over any state function. It emphatically does not mean that public practice of religion should be banned, nor that public officials should be free of religious persuasion. Furthermore, your source is inadequate because you link to an editorial describing the cultural issues of such bad policy; you significantly didn't cite any proposed legislation intended to address the legal issues.
Ripping off constitutional protections and replacing them with pseudo-feudal loonie bull****?
Read the bill! (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958.IH:)
That's a Constitutional bill. It even cites the sections of the Constitution which authorize its effects. Please list the Constitutional protections you believe are removed by such a bill, and define the phrase "pseudo-feudal loonie bull****" to your satisfaction.
I find it highly curious that you react so strongly to a bill that 1) is Constitutional, 2) repeals no Constitutional protections, 3) abridge no personal or corporate rights, and 4) is only proposed, and not yet law. Yet you have not said a word about the recent NDAA act, which materially abridges the Sixth Amendment, nor HR 347 (http://inthesetimes.com/ittlist/entry/12874/obama_signs_the_anti-occupy_law/), which materially abridges the First Amendment, both of which have been signed into law, and both of which Ron Paul voted against. I would appreciate any insight you would care to share into your method of prioritization here.
Voting against government to stop dealing with Janjaweed militias?
Read the results (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.180:)
There are any number of reasons he could have voted against this. Considering that prior to this bill Americans already were prohibited by one degree of separation by engaging in business with Sudan, he may have thought that prohibiting two degrees of separation was overkill. Or maybe he considered this a state issue and not a federal issue. Or maybe he didn't like the idea of the USA submitting to the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.
Posing with Stormfront co-founders?
Oh look (http://blogs4conservatives.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/rp-and-db.jpg?w=500&h=375)
So?
Issuing own riders to bills, then voting "No" even though the bill is going to pass?
Seriously lolz (http://www.americanindependent.com/160697/ron-paul-one-of-only-four-house-republicans-to-request-earmarks-for-2011-budget)
Paul's philosophy on this strategy has been well documented; a simple search should have satisfied your curiosity here. But since you're lazy, I'll spell it out. Paul doesn't want the bill to pass in principle, so he votes no. But he asserts that if the bill does pass, his state and his district should receive benefit from it since their taxes contributed to its passage. He is representing his district's financial interests as well as their Constitutional interests.
Moving back to gold currency?
A simple search "ron paul gold standard" would probably have helped you there (http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-02-01/going-back-to-the-gold-standard/)
The gold standard is win. It prevents the government from manipulating the value of the currency, which in turn makes it more difficult to screw up the economic cycle.
Hating on abortion?
Oh it's a bad source, it's only his own campaign site (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/)
Abortion is a pretty hateful practice.
Removal of state bureaus that, for example, make sure tens of thousands people don't die of poisoned milk?
All right, this was a mistake. Ron Paul does not specifically hate FDA. If only I could put my finger on why this article by Ron Paul still feels somewhat suspicious. What could it be? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul288.html)
That article is about dietary supplements, not milk. And it's about preventing the FDA from censoring claims made on packaging, not removal of the FDA altogether. Try finding a more relevant source.
Blocking governmental family planning?
Yeah. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-1548)
What role, if any, do you propose government should play in family planning?
Capital punishment?
All right. Ron Paul only opposes federal death penalty. He's for states to decide it!
You neither cited a source nor offered your opinion on his position here, so...
Banning all public schooling?
This of course depends on the timeline. In 1990s Paul was still very much into banning public schooling. http://www.ronpaularchive.com/1998/02/national-testing-averted-but-education-woes-still-unresolved/ Now he only wants to remove federal control, public student loans, and eliminate Department of Education http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/10/17/ron-paul-1-trillion-cut-plan-targets-five-cabinet-departments (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/10/17/ron-paul-1-trillion-cut-plan-targets-five-cabinet-departments)
Your first source says nothing at all about banning public schooling; it specifically addresses only nationalized testing. Your second source still says nothing about banning public schooling, only about returning schooling authority to state and local levels where it Constitutionally belongs.
In any case, your shotgun approach to arguing against Ron Paul completely misses the core, central reason for supporting his presidential campaign: his fiscal discipline. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate, of either party, who has presented a plan to cut spending. The best any other presidential candidate -- of either political party -- can do is to propose a less-than-planned increase. Which isn't a decrease at all. I'm sure you realize that if this country continues on its unsustainable fiscal path, its debt will utterly overwhelm it. When -- not if -- that happens, neither the neoconservative utopia of World Policeman nor the progressive utopia of Lifelong Welfare will be possible.
So let me ask you: which presidential candidate, of any major or minor party, do you support, and why?
Finally...
So, it has been proven that you [JCDNWarrior] do not know anything your candidate of choice actually votes for and believes. You can still act condescending towards someone who has dug up Ron Pauls antics from late 2011. You manage to blow hot air rhetoric and completely evade questions. You cannot pinpoint any single political position of Paul's you agree with, but you can pretty much claim me a liar.
Nothing of the sort has been proven, you haven't "dug up" any antics, and you are the one blowing hot air rhetoric. I don't think you've had an opportunity to evade questions yet, but I'll see what your responses are to the ones I've posed here.
-
The gold standard is win. It prevents the government from manipulating the value of the currency, which in turn makes it more difficult to screw up the economic cycle.
The gold standard is however impossible to apply, as there is simply not enough gold to go around :P.
On a more serious note: sticking to the gold standard is part of the reason why the Dutch stayed in the economic depression of the 30's so long. Sure, it might make it more easy to screw up the economic cycle, but it most likely also makes it more difficult to unscrew it.
Constitutional
Why is it that the constitution and everything related to it is written with a capital C?
-
Goober "women are baby factories" 5000 posting on GD? Wowzers! I'll just jump right in.
On a more serious note: sticking to the gold standard is part of the reason why the Dutch stayed in the economic depression of the 30's so long. Sure, it might make it more easy to screw up the economic cycle, but it most likely also makes it more difficult to unscrew it.
Not just the Dutch, but virtually every country on the interwar gold standard, like France and the USA, didn't start to recover until dropping the gold standard.
That's not necessarily even the main problem though. It was good for a time but nowadays developed countries trade more efficiently with floating exchange rates.
Abortion is a pretty hateful practice.
You can talk all you want about how much Jesus and babies don't like it, but the only non :doubt: way to talk about this issue is in terms of state and society, both of whom benefit from abortion, so that's that.
In any case, your shotgun approach to arguing against Ron Paul completely misses the core, central reason for supporting his presidential campaign: his fiscal discipline. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate, of either party, who has presented a plan to cut spending.
Which is the only good thing about Ron Paul, and all the other issues are secondary.
-
Goober "women are baby factories" 5000 posting on GD? Wowzers! I'll just jump right in.
On a more serious note: sticking to the gold standard is part of the reason why the Dutch stayed in the economic depression of the 30's so long. Sure, it might make it more easy to screw up the economic cycle, but it most likely also makes it more difficult to unscrew it.
Not just the Dutch, but virtually every country on the interwar gold standard, like France and the USA, didn't start to recover until dropping the gold standard.
That's not necessarily even the main problem though. It was good for a time but nowadays developed countries trade more efficiently with floating exchange rates.
Abortion is a pretty hateful practice.
You can talk all you want about how much Jesus and babies don't like it, but the only non :doubt: way to talk about this issue is in terms of state and society, both of whom benefit from abortion, so that's that.
In any case, your shotgun approach to arguing against Ron Paul completely misses the core, central reason for supporting his presidential campaign: his fiscal discipline. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate, of either party, who has presented a plan to cut spending.
Which is the only good thing about Ron Paul, and all the other issues are secondary.
You realize, there are other events at play than simply what currency standard is used? The point about a sound currency is to prevent inflation. Inflation is one way to spur growth--at least initially, the psychology was that you should save your money for another day. That began to massively change in the 1940s & 50s; personal debt became more accessible, consumerism went on the rise. There were still large portions of people that saved instead of spent. As consumerism ramped up, savings-based banking ramped down. Decades pass and now we're in an interesting conundrum--everyone is saving but inflation is taking its toll. Those who have money in the bank are still getting 25-50 basis points but admitted inflation is at least 190 bp.
My problem with inflation is that I'd do my best to catch a criminal who stole 1.9% of my income every year. If you stole $570 from me this year, I'd report you to the police and try to have you arrested. After all, you effectively stole that money from my pocket. The same goes for institution-drive inflation--I think they're criminals because they're unilaterally making my buying power decrease. Sure, I can buy as much beef as before (nevermind that I used to buy steak but now have to eat chuck), but that beef isn't as good.
Legalize a gold or silver-based alternative and I'll take my chances. Or just stop taxing investment vehicles like gold or silver--there's no reason there should be sales tax to buy money.
-
You realize, there are other events at play than simply what currency standard is used? The point about a sound currency is to prevent inflation. Inflation is one way to spur growth--at least initially, the psychology was that you should save your money for another day. That began to massively change in the 1940s & 50s; personal debt became more accessible, consumerism went on the rise.
Really, Bob-san? You should start a podcast. You sound like me from a past life.
There were still large portions of people that saved instead of spent. As consumerism ramped up, savings-based banking ramped down. Decades pass and now we're in an interesting conundrum--everyone is saving but inflation is taking its toll. Those who have money in the bank are still getting 25-50 basis points but admitted inflation is at least 190 bp.
Raising interest rates in the middle of a recession is not necessarily a good idea.
My problem with inflation is that I'd do my best to catch a criminal who stole 1.9% of my income every year. If you stole $570 from me this year, I'd report you to the police and try to have you arrested. After all, you effectively stole that money from my pocket. The same goes for institution-drive inflation--I think they're criminals because they're unilaterally making my buying power decrease. Sure, I can buy as much beef as before (nevermind that I used to buy steak but now have to eat chuck), but that beef isn't as good.
Inflation "back in the good old days" you're talking about (1900 to 1933, the last year of the GS) was about 1.5%. Gold can inflate too. Surprise!
Plus, gold has a lot of important nonmonetary use nowadays that it didn't have in the boondock era or even in 1973.
Legalize a gold or silver-based alternative and I'll take my chances. Or just stop taxing investment vehicles like gold or silver--there's no reason there should be sales tax to buy money.
You might be unemployed or see pay cuts, though, since there are other reasons why moderate inflation exists other than just for the sake of the central bank being evil.
-
Those newsletters were ghost-written.
Irrelevant. He affixed his name to them, rather prominently. He hired the people who wrote them. He took responsibility in other words.
If I were to allow an underling at work who I had charged to create a company newsletter to do this, I would be rightly fired along with them, and I wouldn't have even put my goddamn name in front of it.
-
You realize, there are other events at play than simply what currency standard is used? The point about a sound currency is to prevent inflation. Inflation is one way to spur growth--at least initially, the psychology was that you should save your money for another day. That began to massively change in the 1940s & 50s; personal debt became more accessible, consumerism went on the rise.
Really, Bob-san? You should start a podcast. You sound like me from a past life.
Raising interest rates in the middle of a recession is not necessarily a good idea.
Actually, it is a good idea. Low interest rates set a lower bar for ROI. Instead of building where it is beneficial, instead things are built where it is easy. What good is coming out of a recession if a company will have another crash 2 years later when shorter-term debt comes due? In a free market, interest rates reflect the risks. If a company is on unsteady footing, it's a clear message that they need to stop borrowing and start paying off debt instead. They should only expand if it accelerates their ability to repay.
A company with a B rating COULD issue new bonds at 3%; that's territory usually only for high-rated companies (AA & AAA with neutral/positive outlooks). However, if their peers with B ratings issue debt at 6%, that means that the company cannot sell their new debt at face value--they've gotta discount the bond. That means that, instead of being able to sell new debt for $100.00, they can only sell it for $77.68.
Inflation "back in the good old days" you're talking about (1900 to 1933, the last year of the GS) was about 1.5%. Gold can inflate too. Surprise!
Plus, gold has a lot of important nonmonetary use nowadays that it didn't have in the boondock era or even in 1973.
Anything can inflate--though gold inflation is more reflecting new influxes of gold and politicians that keep a fractional gold reserve when issuing paper currencies. By changing the ratios or the currency itself, they can manipulate it. It's based on confidence as well.
Gold isn't nearly as important as you think in economic production. The vast majority of gold is kept for reserves, investments, and jewelery. A relatively small part is used in industrial applications--usually to plate exposed metal to prevent corrosion or as a style accent. Nickel is being used in similar applications, and bare copper is fine for non-exposed surfaces. Paint is also cheaper to use when plating iron or steel. I could fish out the exact numbers but, honestly, I'm too lazy right now.
Oh, and there was actually deflation--since the supply of gold increased slower than Western populations grew.
The nice thing about using gold coins is that there is no reserved--the intrinsic value is present. You cannot reclaim the gold in coins without literally destroying its face value.
You might be unemployed or see pay cuts, though, since there are other reasons why moderate inflation exists other than just for the sake of the central bank being evil.
You know, I'd much rather index my salary or wages to the price of gold. At least then, if politicians are stupid, I don't lose portions of its value. We're already unemployed, we've already seen pay cuts. Inflation exists--the point of order is to try and stop inflation or even cause deflation. That way, the savers can actually save and the spenders can still spend. Easy credit will be all but wiped out.
-
So your favored style of argument is to throw out a dozen mischaracterizations, malignments, and personal attacks, hoping that some of them will stick. Congratulations, you've mastered the art of internet bluster. You may be able to intimidate people in this manner, but you're not doing intellectual honesty any favors.
Oh! How dandy. Of course, would you have actually read the thread, it was simply listing sources for my previous statements, which were questioned by a poster JSDNwarrior. The statements, as I presented them, were a series of questions directed at poster Sushi.
I also presented at least some kind of sources in support of my view.
Those newsletters were ghost-written. Ron Paul didn't write them himself and every time they've been brought up during the campaign, he's disavowed the specific sentiments expressed in those quotes. It's important to realize, though, that there are only about a dozen such quotes throughout the entire series of newsletters. Every time the media roll out a different news article, they always recycle the same few quotes.
Ron Paul ok'd the entire newsletter thing. They were published under his name from 1984 onwards. The fleet-footed negroes stuff was published in 1992. The newsletters - which were published under his name - contained tidbits that hinted that even if Paul himself didn't write them, then someone played the part pretty well: referring to Paul's occupation, history and living place in first person.
So either
1. he wrote that stupid stuff
2. he let stupid stuff be written and published under his name and persona for 14 years and didn't do anything about it.
yeah, sure. ghostwritten. I see that this works towards the intellectual honesty you were so worried about.
The phrase "separation of church and state" simply means that no state organization should have authority over any church function, and no church organization should have authority over any state function. It emphatically does not mean that public practice of religion should be banned, nor that public officials should be free of religious persuasion. Furthermore, your source is inadequate because you link to an editorial describing the cultural issues of such bad policy; you significantly didn't cite any proposed legislation intended to address the legal issues.
The editorial was written by him. You are being purposefully obtuse if you claim an ideological editorial does not describe writer's personal opinions. What was that about intellectual honesty?
That's a Constitutional bill. It even cites the sections of the Constitution which authorize its effects. Please list the Constitutional protections you believe are removed by such a bill, and define the phrase "pseudo-feudal loonie bull****" to your satisfaction.
Lawrence vs. Texas. If you remove jurisdiction of federal rights from a federal court that is designed to oversee the protection of rights..
Yet you have not said a word about the recent NDAA act, which materially abridges the Sixth Amendment, nor HR 347 (http://inthesetimes.com/ittlist/entry/12874/obama_signs_the_anti-occupy_law/), which materially abridges the First Amendment, both of which have been signed into law, and both of which Ron Paul voted against. I would appreciate any insight you would care to share into your method of prioritization here.
I do not know or care about NDAA act, I have not brought it up and I am not going to argue against something in your snide attempt of trying to look "neutral". You have not denounced nazism, Monsanto and UFOs in this post, therefore I find your priorization interesting. If you wish to discuss the NDAA you are free to do so. But I have not talked about it. This is a blatant attempt of derailing the thread and trying to argue in bad faith. Your intellectual honesty is indeed very interesting.
There are any number of reasons he could have voted against this. Considering that prior to this bill Americans already were prohibited by one degree of separation by engaging in business with Sudan, he may have thought that prohibiting two degrees of separation was overkill. Or maybe he considered this a state issue and not a federal issue. Or maybe he didn't like the idea of the USA submitting to the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.
Maybe he loves Janjaweed militas? Isn't that a valid maybe as well?
The legislation tried do divest US governmental funds from Khartoum. How is this at odds with anti-interventionism or libertarianism? Paul voted against military intervention, but he also voted against trade option. So what's his option - reflexively voting "no"?
So?
Are you serious?
Paul's philosophy on this strategy has been well documented; a simple search should have satisfied your curiosity here. But since you're lazy, I'll spell it out. Paul doesn't want the bill to pass in principle, so he votes no. But he asserts that if the bill does pass, his state and his district should receive benefit from it since their taxes contributed to its passage. He is representing his district's financial interests as well as their Constitutional interests.
I knew that. So he can get money and say that he has technically never voted for a rider? How does knowing that make that kind of behaviour... wait, there was a key word here I directed this at... yes, principled?
Principled. How would you measure principled politican in an intellectually honest way?
The gold standard is win. It prevents the government from manipulating the value of the currency, which in turn makes it more difficult to screw up the economic cycle.
Many other people are arguing against this.
Abortion is a pretty hateful practice.
Counterpoint: No it's not!
I would have thought that when one is discussing sweeping legislation, then intellectually honest approach would be not using personal viewpoints as a one-liner counterpoints.
What role, if any, do you propose government should play in family planning?
Help for those in need.
You neither cited a source nor offered your opinion on his position here, so...
Yes.
Your first source says nothing at all about banning public schooling; it specifically addresses only nationalized testing. Your second source still says nothing about banning public schooling, only about returning schooling authority to state and local levels where it Constitutionally belongs.
Dismantling DoE? Saying federal level has no power in schooling?
I am simply going to attach my original reply here:
This of course depends on the timeline. In 1990s Paul was still very much into banning public schooling. http://www.ronpaularchive.com/1998/02/national-testing-averted-but-education-woes-still-unresolved/ Now he only wants to remove federal control, public student loans, and eliminate Department of Education http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/10/17/ron-paul-1-trillion-cut-plan-targets-five-cabinet-departments
I stated that Ron Paul wants to ban publich schooling. Then I amended this fact.
Earlier in this reply you commented how a "simple google" would have helped me to understand something (which I already knew, but didn't think was important). I am now googling the fact. Paul opposed the public schooling in 1980s. He no longer does it. He does not want the federal level have anything to do with it. He wishes to dismantle ED.
In any case, your shotgun approach to arguing against Ron Paul completely misses the core, central reason for supporting his presidential campaign: his fiscal discipline. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate, of either party, who has presented a plan to cut spending. The best any other presidential candidate -- of either political party -- can do is to propose a less-than-planned increase. Which isn't a decrease at all. I'm sure you realize that if this country continues on its unsustainable fiscal path, its debt will utterly overwhelm it. When -- not if -- that happens, neither the neoconservative utopia of World Policeman nor the progressive utopia of Lifelong Welfare will be possible.
Talk of "unsustainable fiscal path" is weasely in itself. We can look at trade deficit, or percentage of federal spending as a percentage of overall GDP, or whatever.
So let me ask you: which presidential candidate, of any major or minor party, do you support, and why?
None. I am not american.
Nothing of the sort has been proven, you haven't "dug up" any antics, and you are the one blowing hot air rhetoric. I don't think you've had an opportunity to evade questions yet, but I'll see what your responses are to the ones I've posed here.
Oh, the glorious guardian angel Goober. I bet Sushi and JCDNWarrior are exhausted for you to be here to explain why they support a candidate. I ask for clarification. I get none. Then you appear here with your cowardly lines of "intellectual honesty", all the while completely missing the point.
Sure, I can answer you. I can even admit when I am wrong. It would be intellectually honest to let other people answer to questions I asked them.
When a politician runs on the "principled" platform, it is questionable if he does not practice as he preaches, but instead tries to ride a moral high horse while practicing the very thing the critiques. When a politician tries to run a strict constitutionalist platform, it is questionable if he wants to remove constitutional protections in form of Supreme Court jurisdiction re: sexual rights. When a politician runs a strict constitutional platform it is interesting, if he opposes one amendment (birthrigt citizenship) and wants to amend the constitution to change that particular amendment into something completely else. When a politician runs a libertarian platform it is questionable if he votes against a libertarian solution to an international problem. When politician runs an anti-federal state rights line, it is interesting he is willing to sponsor a federal ban on certain practices, while willing to remove other practices from federal jurisdiction.
After all, intellectual honesty.
-
I don't know about all that, but the PCE is currently about 2% in accordance with the Taylor Rule. So if the Fed's been doing fine before I don't think it's a good idea to change. I don't know if you want to get into, like, serious economics and monetary theory or anything. But empirically, demand-side deflation is bad.
Thanks for telling me how bonds work, but that doesn't change much. Fine tuning interest rates to try to get however many companies to default is a really crude way to go about things, assuming more companies need to be defaulting.
Doesn't matter if 10% of gold goes to computing, it'll still increase the price of IT capital not to mention inflate the current ridiculous gold bubble if people start trading more dollars for it.
Oh, and there was actually deflation-
No it didn't. At least not for several decades. Are you trying to say I just made that up? Go look it up, on Measuringworth or something. There were periods of inflation, deflation, and a whole lot of volatility, since commodities are always volatile and a terrible thing to peg a currency to compared to the dollar currently. But around 1900 the cyanide process was invented to process low grade ore and gold began inflating. So it really depends.
-since the supply of gold increased slower than Western populations grew.
Wat? Did you just disprove reality theoretically?
Gold convertibility doesn't directly prevent the government from running a deficit. It may result in severe inflation if the deficit is large enough. But that's basically what the US was doing to finance the Vietnam War and Medicaid, and the GS provided a big windfall to America because of how highly overvalued the dollar was under Bretton Woods. The US could pretty much print money and spend as much as it wanted, since the dollar remained pegged to gold and foreign currencies were pegged to the dollar. Really unfair system to the rest of the world, and De Gaulle was very butthurt over it. But it didn't reduce government spending so much as pass on the cost to other people.
You know, I'd much rather index my salary or wages to the price of gold. At least then, if politicians are stupid, I don't lose portions of its value. We're already unemployed, we've already seen pay cuts. Inflation exists--the point of order is to try and stop inflation or even cause deflation.
Whatever floats your boat dude, but everyone else wants to live in an economy, see economic growth, hold their job and have real wage growth rather than a monetary system that reduced capacity utilization and investment, and contributed to worse depressions than we have now. But go ask your boss, it would be up to them. Just probably not a good idea until a few years from now since gold's about to loose 99% of its value when Glen Beck sneezes.
Whether or not it's a good idea to index your wages to gold depends on where exactly we are in the business cycle, and your employer may or may not be willing to play speculation games with you.
That way, the savers can actually save and the spenders can still spend. Easy credit will be all but wiped out.
That's just your opinion, man. And it doesn't make any sense either since some of the largest credit bubbles in history happened under the GS.
-
I don't know about all that, but the PCE is currently about 2% in accordance with the Taylor Rule. So if the Fed's been doing fine before I don't think it's a good idea to change. I don't know if you want to get into, like, serious economics and monetary theory or anything. But empirically, demand-side deflation is bad.
Inflationary indexes usually fail to account for luxury as well as durability. Yes, you can substitute beef chuck for steak, but beef chuck is not steak and cannot become steak. That's not true of other items--the candy bar metaphor comes into play often. Originally, you can afford 2 peanut-butter and chocolate bars & 2 pure chocolate bars but, because peanuts are more expensive, now you can buy one peanut-butter bar and three chocolate bars. That's fine and good if you prefer chocolate bars. But what happens at the end of that scale? If instead of Lindt, you're now buying Hershey's. Instead of Hershey's, you're now buying house-brand. Where do you go from house-brand? If you're already shopping at the discount store, where do you go from there?
Thanks for telling me how bonds work, but that doesn't change much. Fine tuning interest rates to try to get however many companies to default is a really crude way to go about things, assuming more companies need to be defaulting.
Actually, it does. Bonds are so stable because of perceptions. But it's those perceptions that affect how you can borrow. Risk and reward doesn't span 10% of your investment--and you shouldn't risk your money for no return. You should also not become desperate, chasing whatever return is possible regardless of risk. You pull back your money and regroup; you plan a way out of your conundrum. Charging forward with more reckless abandon makes great headlines and could make a few people rich, but unprincipled action is a result of grasping for a silver bullet--for a miracle cure to your problems. So yes, those companies that do that SHOULD fail, and they should fail often. Meanwhile, the employees have a choice--stick around and accept their paychecks or jump ship, either to unemployment or another company.
Doesn't matter if 10% of gold goes to computing, it'll still increase the price of IT capital not to mention inflate the current ridiculous gold bubble if people start trading more dollars for it.
Gold is not unique in its uses. Besides, it becomes a balance between economic benefits--storing it as wealth versus using it in industry. It means that cheap electronics may not have gold-plated contacts--which is fine by me since you get what you pay for. The gold bubble is a symptom of distrust for fiat currencies--and it's not really a bubble either--maybe it's overpriced, but when all is said and done, you don't owe a debt obligation. Bubbles are much more results of easy credit in an industry--things look great until they pop. Gold is the opposite--you don't take a mortgage against gold. And further, a futures contract means that you're buying fine gold for delivery at a specific time. You own that gold. If you borrowed money to purchase it, then its on personal credit as your investments belong to yourself. That's also very much unlike the last catastrophic bubble (real estate).
No it didn't. At least not for several decades. Are you trying to say I just made that up? Go look it up, on Measuringworth or something. There were periods of inflation, deflation, and a whole lot of volatility, since commodities are always volatile and a terrible thing to peg a currency to compared to the dollar currently. But around 1900 the cyanide process was invented to process low grade ore and gold began inflating. So it really depends.
Inflation always depends on what you peg it to. You've got to peg it to something. At least through 1970, foreign banks could exchange FRNs for gold. That limited inflation (since gold was the only thing fixed). Unfortunately, since everything is constantly changing, you must select something to index.
-since the supply of gold increased slower than Western populations grew.
http://www.dani2989.com/gold/productiondorcyclesgb26072004.htm
4577 metric tons accounts for about 2.5% of the total mine and refine gold. That means that there's about 183,000 metric tons mined. 400-1500 metric tons were mined every year from 1904 until 1970. Gold mining's growth rate was greatly in excess of the real population growth. Using the USA as an example, there were 76M people here in 1900. By 1970, that number grew to 205M. 70 years, 129M people. That's an average annual growth rate of 1.43% though is biased towards increased immigration. Without the exact production numbers per year, I can observe that the 1500 metric ton production in 1970 accounted for approximately a 1.15% increase in the gold supply. (Assuming there was about 132K metric tons by 1970.) That year, there was a 1.17% increase in population. Years prior had much lower gold productions.
Gold convertibility doesn't directly prevent the government from running a deficit. It may result in severe inflation if the deficit is large enough. But that's basically what the US was doing to finance the Vietnam War and Medicaid, and the GS provided a big windfall to America because of how highly overvalued the dollar was under Bretton Woods. The US could pretty much print money and spend as much as it wanted, since the dollar remained pegged to gold and foreign currencies were pegged to the dollar. Really unfair system to the rest of the world, and De Gaulle was very butthurt over it. But it didn't reduce government spending so much as pass on the cost to other people.
You know, I'd much rather index my salary or wages to the price of gold. At least then, if politicians are stupid, I don't lose portions of its value. We're already unemployed, we've already seen pay cuts. Inflation exists--the point of order is to try and stop inflation or even cause deflation.
Whatever floats your boat dude, but everyone else wants to live in an economy, see economic growth, hold their job and have real wage growth rather than a monetary system that reduced capacity utilization and investment, and contributed to worse depressions that we have now. But go ask your boss, it would be up to them. Just probably not a good idea until a few years from now since gold's about to loose 99% of its value when Glen Beck sneezes.
No, it doesn't. But gold convertibility ensures that there are forces other than a central bank that can influence our monetary policy. Further, some inflation in price is simply decreased supplies. After all, Florida can only grow so many oranges. The problem by 1970 was we were already a fiat currency--only foreign banks could claim gold. Right now, the problem is no better--without gold, we've been able to finance Medicare, Medicaid, Part D, Obamacare, Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other military excursions. And further, the materials used in war are materials effectively wasted--you need steel for buildings as well as tanks and gasoline for airplanes as well as transport trucks.
Most gold bugs don't listen to Glen Beck--some might, but not all. Gold's position is so shining at the moment because everything else is so crappy. It's also slowly deflating--not violently like real estate. The reason is because you can hold gold and know it'll hold its value in 30 years.
Whether or not it's a good idea to index your wages to gold depends on where exactly we are in the business cycle, and your employer may or may not be willing to play speculation games with you.
Oh, I agree. Wouldn't you have loved to index at $200/oz? When I went to college, gold was $672/oz. By the time I graduated, it was >$1600/oz. I would have loved to have taken out my loans for subsequent quarters and invested them in gold. They'd have gone twice or thrice as long. Or I could have used the profits and erased the loans entirely. Or I could have bought a car or actually fed myself 3 square meals a day.
That way, the savers can actually save and the spenders can still spend. Easy credit will be all but wiped out.
That's just your opinion, man. And it doesn't make any sense either since some of the largest credit bubbles in history happened under the GS.
And, afterwards, those that saved were in the same position as before. Easy credit has accelerated since we left any semblance of a GS. Part technology, part speculation--all harmful to life-long savers.
-
Oh! How dandy. Of course, would you have actually read the thread, it was simply listing sources for my previous statements, which were questioned by a poster JSDNwarrior. The statements, as I presented them, were a series of questions directed at poster Sushi.
Oh, the glorious guardian angel Goober. I bet Sushi and JCDNWarrior are exhausted for you to be here to explain why they support a candidate.
I haven't responded to you for a very simple reason. You are clearly picking a fight. I refuse to be goaded into one. Have a nice day. :)
-
Inflationary indexes usually fail to account for luxury as well as durability. Yes, you can substitute beef chuck for steak, but beef chuck is not steak and cannot become steak. That's not true of other items--the candy bar metaphor comes into play often. Originally, you can afford 2 peanut-butter and chocolate bars & 2 pure chocolate bars but, because peanuts are more expensive, now you can buy one peanut-butter bar and three chocolate bars. That's fine and good if you prefer chocolate bars. But what happens at the end of that scale? If instead of Lindt, you're now buying Hershey's. Instead of Hershey's, you're now buying house-brand. Where do you go from house-brand? If you're already shopping at the discount store, where do you go from there?
I don't know, but I guess that settles things somehow.
Changing monetary policy because some guy on the internet thinks not enough businesses are failing would destroy the Fed's credibility to stick to inflation targeting and create a whole bunch of volatility in the economy. So that's one reason I don't like your idea.
At least through 1970, foreign banks could exchange FRNs for gold. That limited inflation (since gold was the only thing fixed).
Eh. Inflation was pretty high in the 60s. The GS did very little to check monetary policy and resulted in inflation elsewhere with everyone being pegged to the dollar. When the US ran out of gold reserves, it just dropped the gold standard. So so much for that.
But the Fed is a lot better about those things now than it was. Taking inflation any lower would be a bad thing, ala Japan.
(Assuming there was about 132K metric tons by 1970.) That year, there was a 1.17% increase in population. Years prior had much lower gold productions.
That's really not how things work. But whatever. Look up 20th century price indexes. Or not.
No, it doesn't. But gold convertibility ensures that there are forces other than a central bank that can influence our monetary policy.
Terrible idea. Explain why, exactly, the Fed is doing something wrong and we can go from there.
Further, some inflation in price is simply decreased supplies. After all, Florida can only grow so many oranges. The problem by 1970 was we were already a fiat currency--only foreign banks could claim gold. Right now, the problem is no better--without gold, we've been able to finance Medicare, Medicaid, Part D, Obamacare, Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other military excursions. And further, the materials used in war are materials effectively wasted--you need steel for buildings as well as tanks and gasoline for airplanes as well as transport trucks.
That's an entirely legitimate point. All those healthcare excursions would be a lot harder to get tax increases for under gold. But there are still so many other problems with the idea that I don't think it would be worth it today.
Most gold bugs don't listen to Glen Beck--some might, but not all. Gold's position is so shining at the moment because everything else is so crappy. It's also slowly deflating--not violently like real estate. The reason is because you can hold gold and know it'll hold its value in 30 years.
Gold will not be worth $1,700 2012USD in 30 years- if it is, Glenn Beck will make us tremble in his wake. Yes, I get the idea. But many interest bearing dollar investments tend to do better over the long term anyway.
The long term real return on gold is about zero; it's a store of value, not an investment, and a really pain in the ass one to carry around with you and buy things at Wal Mart with, at that.
Also gold isn't really deflating, it's ridiculously volatile and if anything was up last year. And no one has ever proposed the Real Estate Standard. But I need to stop talking.
Oh, I agree. Wouldn't you have loved to index at $200/oz? When I went to college, gold was $672/oz. By the time I graduated, it was >$1600/oz. I would have loved to have taken out my loans for subsequent quarters and invested them in gold. They'd have gone twice or thrice as long. Or I could have used the profits and erased the loans entirely. Or I could have bought a car or actually fed myself 3 square meals a day.
Bah, get an economics degree and you'll have two cars when you graduate.
And, afterwards, those that saved were in the same position as before. Easy credit has accelerated since we left any semblance of a GS. Part technology, part speculation--all harmful to life-long savers.
Actually, the credit cycle is about the same or slightly better than it was. Do you like reading academic papers? I could give you one.
-
TIME OUT!
Line-by-line replies are painful. We all know it. We all hate doing it. It sucks to read and ensures new people are unlikely to contribute. So let's stop it!
;)
-
TIME OUT!
I agree.
Line-by-line replies are painful. We all know it. We all hate doing it. It sucks to read and ensures new people are unlikely to contribute. So let's stop it!
Definitely.
;)
Of course, I mean look at Janos up there, he's really giving Goob some bathroom reading.
-
There's actually something very fundamental about multiquoting that degrades intellectual internet discourse. Each paragraph of the OP multiplies exponentially as its sentences are picked apart, spawning new debates. Not only are these responses individually shorter, but once resolved neither side can cease quoting for fear of appearing defeated. Thus one sees rapid entropy of discourse and descent into ad homimem. Mozilla is telling me it's spelt "homemade".
-
When I rule the world, monetary notes will be printed on various types of cheese. When the note becomes so hairy as to be unreadable, it ceases to be legal tender. This will keep inflation under control by ensuring that money leaves the economy at a reasonably predictable rate, while simultaneously ensuring that money continuously flows within the economy, as hoarding wealth (producing economic stagnation) will result in that wealth rotting away.
I will be old enough to assume the office of United States President in 2020. Just keep that in mind, when you consider possible write-in candidates in the future. After all, if you have to vote for a lunatic, you may as well vote for the biggest lunatic of them all.
-
Of course, I mean look at Janos up there, he's really giving Goob some bathroom reading.
I really have to admit that I wrote that answer in the morning, after waking up, without enough legal drugs in my system. It's my cardinal sin. Long line-by-line posts about political subjects while being angry and tired. It doesn't really make the discussion easier or more fun to read. It also focuses on small details instead of larger, more comprehensive lines.
-
the best the best (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFXXAuDK1Ao)
-
This man wants to use zombies as an energy source.
**** yeah.