Just thought all you libertarians would want a heads up! 
No one saw it, huh? Paul did well, came off as a guy who was genuinely concerned about the country and seemed to earn Jon’s respect, though I doubt they see eye to eye on a lot of social/economic issues. The two seemed to get along, unlike some times when Jon has interviewed conservatives and the tension was so thick you could see it.
Firstly, let it be known that I’m a Ron Paul supporter, I plan on voting for him in the primaries (I’m changing to an independent so I can do that) and in the national election if (hah) he wins.
However, I’m a bit disappointed when these TV personalities don’t go after him hard enough, simply because he’s a much more “liberal” and honestly sane voice coming from the GOP. I saw him on Bill Mayer’s show the two times he was on, and I much preferred the first time, when Mayer went at the guy’s throat, because it showed how strong Paul was when he could still defend himself. The second time, Mayer showed nothing but Paul love, and it was a bit sad. Paul looks best when he gets a really tough question and can field it well, which he mostly can because he’s a very smart man. When he’s just fed questions that he knows an easy answer to, he looks like any other politician. One of the things that excites me most about Paul is that he has a political philosophy that he can use to answer any question, rather than just a bunch of talking points. So many politicians flounder when given a question they haven’t gotten a talking point for yet, because they don’t hold much integrity themselves, and just recite points given to them by their party or publicist.
This is what I’m most disappointed about with regards to US politics, our anti-intellectualism. We expect politicians to have answers to everything based on party lines, not based on sound philosophy or science or rational thought. That is the number one reason I support Ron Paul, he’s an intellectual, and why I’d also support Gore were he to run. This country needs someone with integrity to run it, and I don’t see that with anyone else running, perhaps Obama but his newness to the political field scares me a bit.
Nobody who advocates the gold standard can be taken seriously as a politician or a libertarian.
Care to actually back that up rather than just throwing it out there? No one who just makes statements without showing any examples or theory behind them can be taken seriously as a debater, at least in my book.
BTW, if this turns into a debate or something, mods, please feel free to move it.
Two previous threads on the subject:
What happens when the US converts to the Gold Standard and
Should the US put itself back on the Gold Standard
The executive summary reads “nobody who advocates the gold standard can be taken seriously as a politician or a libertarian.” 
When I’ve heard Paul speak on gold standard stuff recently, it appears that he’s aware that it’s not feasible to go completely back to the standard, but he thinks that it’s extremely important that we return to something closer to sound money. His main beef with the Federal Reserve appears to be that he believes they basically provide an unlimited line of credit to the government at the cost of inflation to the currency.
Anyway, I think his performance on the Daily Show was quite good and I was surprised at how respectful Stewart was of him. He’s the only GOP candidate in the race right now that I would even think of voting for right now, so the more exposure he can get, the better
Isn’t this the candidate who believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories? Or is that just Republican propaganda?
The 9/11 Truthers have latched onto him from some reason I’m unaware of, he has never given any indication that he thinks 9/11 was an “inside job.” My best guess is that since he generally thinks that the government is untrustworthy, and says so, that these people agree with him.
Michelle Malkin on Fox tried to tie him to a “Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth” because that group posted a video on YouTube of them asking him questions at some house party.
Pretty flimsy stuff, considering he cites the 9/11 Commission Report a lot when he talks about the reasons why they attacked us.
Imagine my disappointment upon discovering this thread wasn’t about RuPaul appearing on the Daily Show.
How much general inflation have we actually had since the '70s?
A brief Google search turned up this site: http://www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus/
Which gives us about a 5x increase since 1970, but I have no idea how well this compares with other countries’ inflation rates.
Ron Paul has not endorsed any 9/11 conspiracy theories that I know of. He has not tried to argue that the federal government pulled off the attacks itself.
What he HAS argued is that American foreign policy has antagonized the Muslim world, and that we pretty much ASKED to be attacked by meddling in other nations’ affairs.
That’s pretty much what you’d expect an isolationist to say.
Bill Maher.
Ron is fighting the great fight, I suppose. I wish him luck. At least he makes the primary debates interesting.
I don’t think that he said we’d ASKED to be attacked, but rather suggested that it was one of the reasons we were attacked, and considering that’s been the finding of the 9/11 commission as well as the reason Bin Laden gave, it’s pretty safe to say he’s right, even if the media and many politicians have been calling him a loony for it.
Oh, and stupid stupid for the Mayer misspelling, I thought as I posted that, “isn’t there an ‘h’ in his name?”.
Also, thanks for the threads on the gold standard, that clears up a lot.