http://www.beaconequity.com/paul-krugman-takes-a-swing-at-peter-schiff-ron-paul-2011-12-16/
http://www.beaconequity.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/CHART3.png
What do you expect to prove by that chart? That when money is decoupled from commodities that commodity prices go up with inflation?
Or where you trying to disprove MfM’s point by showing that prices have gone back up? If that is the case, then you missed the note at bottom:
Has anyone posted this Ron Paul ad yet? I think it has just the right amount of Drama 
Not as much drama as the first Comment under it –
Needs more cowbell.
If Ron Paul wins Iowa, or comes close, the GOP Establishment will land on him with both feet and unload both barrels at him. So far, they have been effective at crushing the anti-Romney (see all of Romney’s latest endorsements as Newt rose above him) and have left Paul alone because they believe, like most of us here, that Paul is a circus curiosity.
If he becomes relevant, he won’t know what hit him. The press will drag out every crazy and perceived crazy quote he has ever made. Women will come out of the ocean claiming affairs and sexual harassment. Young boys will say that he and Jerry Sandusky held youth camps together. Get ready for the jungle, Ron Paul, if you become a factor.
You don’t know the half of it…
Will Ron Paul kill the caucuses?
Some Paulbots on the political forums are claiming that the GOP establishment is willing to shut the Iowa Caucus down completely if Paul walks away with it.
Meanwhile:
When all else fails, Blame Teh Evil Libruls. :rolleyes:
So when did tea partiers become libruls? Geez you would think these establishment Republicans would have a little shame and just let Ron paul have the damn nomination after the libertarian arm of the Republican party provided them with an opportunity to divorce themselves from their past, specifically with the period between 2001 and 2009.
Ron Paul 2012
Or Newt Gingrich 2012
Or Rick Perry 2012
Or Michele Bachman 2012
Or Herman Cain 2012
Or Donald Trump 2012
Anybody but that flip flopper (who is the only one polling within 5 points of Obama) Romney 2012
First of all, it won’t be just The GOP Establishment being mean to poor Ron. Pundits and media types of various persuasions will pay much closer attention to his weird and wonderful ways, and the spotlight will have many unflattering aspects. As far as Republican regulars are concerned, there are limits to how nasty they can get. What must be avoided at all costs is pissing off Ron and his herd enough that they get serious about a third party candidacy (which Ron has been coy about up till now).
I don’t see a Ron Paul sex scandal in the offing, though it might be fun to revisit that sequence from the movie Bruno. 
Over the last couple of days this has happened in force. The press is asking questions about the Ron Paul Report newsletters again. Not just the ones that were discussed in 2008, either; new ones have been found that warned about impending race wars and things like that. What’s sort of amazing is that Paul is handling them poorly even though he’s been asked about this stuff before. He walked out of a CNN interview when asked about them. And now here’s a video of Paul talking about the Trilateral Commission. As I keep saying, though, he’s been pro-conspiracy theory for years. If that scares anyone off, they weren’t paying attention.
I just read the “race war” newsletter…what a nut. The race war prediction was actually one of the less nutty things in it. It was 18 years ago but he was certainly old enough to have known better at the time. It is a shame there isn’t a candidate who believes in significantly restraining the government, who isn’t a nutball.
Apparently Ron Paul has not been the soul of consistency in explaining the newsletters. At one time the line was that he only really paid attention to a newsletter on investments, but his story has been [del]shifting[/del] evolving:
*"Paul’s accounts of the newsletters’ contents have varied since 1995. He told The Dallas Morning News in 1996 that the contents of the newsletters were accurate but needed to be taken in context. At the time, Texas Democrats were circulating copies of the newsletters as they campaigned against Paul’s return to the House.
In 2001, Paul told the magazine Texas Monthly that the language in the newsletters wasn’t his, but that his campaign staff told him not to say others had written them because it was “too confusing.”*
Seeing that Newt Gingrich has taken a hit for his circa 1970 PhD thesis (courtesy of Maureen Dowd), it’s hard for Paul supporters to argue that their guy is being unduly picked on for garbage that circulated as recently as 1996.
Ooo, now it’s being reported that Ron Paul in a signed advertising letter to get people to sign up for his newsletters had some really groovy insights:
"Ron Paul’s campaign says he did not write an advertising letter that went out under Paul’s name 20 years ago that predicted a “coming race war in our big cities” and referenced a “federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS.”…The advertising letter, which was reported by Reuters on Friday, was a solicitation for people to sign up for Paul’s newsletters, and it reportedly appears to carry’s Paul’s signature at the end. It warns that a currency redesign is part of a government plot to track Americans and claims that Paul had “unmasked” a “plot for world government, world money and world central banking.”
I knew there was something funny about the new paper money. Everyone, quick, send me all your $20 bills. :eek:
I want to like Ron Paul. I’m not bullshitting when I say that. I don’t like his politics but as a man he just strikes me as a good guy. Except, he’s really not. He has his newsletters, which say some repulsive shit. Ok, fine, he says he didn’t write those. I want to like Ron Paul, so maybe I try to believe it. But then he says shit like this, from his own mouth..
I read something like that and my first thought is, 'well, maybe he wrote those newsletters after all." What kind of shit is that to say? How can a TSA employee not look American? It’s not like they’re going to be in a hijab or dishdasha. So a person in a uniform strikes him as 'Not looking American." What the hell does that leave if not skin color?
Being a moron with a poor grasp of the english language? Being a jackbooted thug who has no place in American society? Or maybe he was just making a joke about the TSA getting a taste of their own medicine. Unless there’s more to it than what you just posted, trying to portray it as racist is just stupid.
Really? Taking into account his issues with ‘fleet footed negroes’ and upcoming race wars and the like, at what point is it ok for me to wonder, “This seems to be a consistent issue with this man, and it’s starting to bother me?” How much benefit of the doubt am I supposed to give him?
Neither of those describes appearance, and he’s talking about the people who were hired, not their behavior. This seems to be the original source of that quote. He’s not quoted further, but he is pretty clearly talking about how people look, not how they act (like morons, for example). He describes their speech separately, and since when does speaking poor English make you less of an American anyway? It’s not unreasonable to take that as an offensive comment about minorities for several different reasons.
I don’t think Paul wrote the newsletters. The consensus since 2008 is that they were written by a guy named Lew Rockwell. It’s credible because some of the people who confirm it are Paul staffers, but Paul won’t name the author himself, nor will the author acknowledge what he wrote, and Paul won’t even really dissociate himself from that old school racist/libertarian crowd even though he does disavow the statements.
According to the previous link I posted:
Seeing as how Ron supposedly disavows the offensive statements in the newsletters, how much of the money he earned from them has he returned or donated?
If you substitute stupid for crazy, lots of my Republican co-workers were saying very similar things about Bush II before his first election. Look what he achieved!
But I can find some comfort in the fact that Paul, at least, doesn’t seem to want to start a war over every possible affront to the dignity of the US, unlike his competitors.
I’ll go out on a limb and guess the answer is “none.”
Ron Paul apparently thinks that extremists’ money is as good as anybody else’s if it supports Ron Paul.
There’s a story in today’s N.Y. Times about extremist/racist support for Paul (including the likes of Stormfront), which quotes a fellow libertarian on the subject of fundraising.
*"Mr. Crane of the Cato Institute recalled comparing notes with Mr. Paul in the early 1980s about direct mail solicitations for money. When Mr. Crane said that mailing lists of people with the most extreme views seemed to draw the best response, Mr. Paul responded that he found the same thing with a list of subscribers to the Spotlight, a now-defunct publication founded by the holocaust denier Willis A. Carto.
Mr. Paul said he did not recall that conversation, which was first reported in the libertarian publication Reason, and doubted that he would have known what lists were being used on his behalf. Yet he said he would not have a problem seeking support from such a list."*
So Ron doesn’t care where his money and support come from (his comments also provide yet another interesting example of Ron not having the foggiest notion of what sleazy things are being done and said on his behalf. :dubious:
Uh-oh. Here’s some mid-'90s video of Paul where he says he wrote some of the newsletters and backs some of the sentiments in them.