What’s wrong with me is that I’m of the opinion that most people only have one head, with one brain. If that one brain is crazy enough to think that there’s an overarching secret conspiracy to secretly collude to build a transcontinental highway, if that one brain is dishonest enough to claim naive ignorance about the contents of their own newsletters and websites, if that one brain is perniciously ignorant enough to think that the gold standard is the solution to all the nation’s ills, then I’m under the mistaken impression that they don’t have a spare brain in their pocket that they’re going to pull out to think of other things. So even if they seem rational about other things at first glance, either the crazy is more suble, or at best it’s only a matter of time.
yeah, yeah. I know he couldn’t actually get all of these things accomplished during one (or even two) terms. But he could move us in that direction. That would be his policy positions. Do you have any issue with those goals? Just him winning election would be a huge victory for issues like those.
You’re going to have to elaborate on why an Austrian system of economics would be inhumane and unethical. From my understanding they believe that everybody is entitled to keep the fruits of their labor and invest their money as they wish, so long as they don’t harm anybody else. Also, they reject the notion that a secretive central bank can steal their money through inflation, consistently eroding the peoples standard of living over time, while enriching a privileged class of bankers.
Some would call this system “liberty”. Say it with me slowly, “Li - Ber -Ty”. In my view it is the only ethical and moral system of society and government that exists. All other systems rely on theft and force, which are inherently unethical.
You aren’t going to get a mainstream Democrat or Republican that will end these wars or change our foreign policy. There are some other “fringe” candidates like Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader who would, but they are no more likely to win that Ron Paul is. Libertarians are the most consistent advocate for ending the war on drugs. There are some liberals who say similar things, but not many.
As far as eliminating social security and “common-sense” environmental regulations, I understand where you are coming from. This is a fair point of disagreement. Believe me, eliminating Social Security is not high on Ron Paul’s agenda. But isn’t it crazy to not be able to even consider a society without social security? Maybe there are better ways to save for retirement. Shouldn’t people at least have the ability to opt out? As far as environmental regulation, I think you misunderstand Ron Paul’s position. He does believe that pollution should be “regulated”. He believes in property rights and that nobody has the authority to pollute anybodies air, water or property. The government has a significant role in preventing pollution and compensating those who have been affected by it.
Its not that I don’t think you have the right to disagree with Ron Paul, but you should acknowledge that there is plenty of common ground to be explored and maybe many of his positions are not as “radical” and “extreme” as you have been lead to believe.
The notion that strict libertarianism is the only ethical and moral society and government that exists is a radical and extreme position if I have ever seen one.
Okay, you say in your own words that “there is evidence of plans being made” concerning the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union. Let’s see what you’ve got.
You’re trying to prove that the North America Union is not a conspiracy theory. Why are you linking to a Wikipedia page which says that it is a conspiracy theory and that no such plans actually exist. Just like I said in your global warming thread, you really should read your links before you post them, otherwise you might end up embarrassing yourself by linking to pages that say the exact opposite of what you claim they say. Like you just did.
That’s written by Jerome Corsi of the Swift Boat Goons. 'Nuff said.
Neither of those have anything to do with the NAFTA Superhighway or the North American Union.
Somebody has posted on the internet claiming there are plans for the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union. He says that he has evidence, but for some reason he doesn’t say what the evidence is. Why not?
So people on television say that there are plans for an Amero and for the North American Union, based on the Security and Prosperity Partnership Act. Here’s a list of documents relating to the bodies created under that act. Can you find any documents which justify the claim that it will “end the United States as we know it”? If not, why did you link to these videos?
All legislation passed by Congress is a matter of public record and is posted on the internet. Can you link me to the piece of legislation that you’re talking about? If not, why not?
He claimed that there are plans for a NAFTA Superhighway. He can’t back that claim up with evidence. Therefore he has made a claim that he can’t back up with evidence.
So Ron Paul is telling the truth because Ron Paul says that he’s telling the truth? Once again, if the legislation that funds the NAFTA Superhighway ever existed, why can’t he tell us the name of that legislation so that we can check the facts for ourselves?
The bottom line is this. The NAFTA Superhighway is one of the most moronic and bizarre conspiracy theories ever dreamed up. Even if Ron Paul were competent to lead the United States in other areas, the mere fact that he believes something so idiotic is enough to convince a large majority of voters that he belongs in a padded room rather than the White House. As for you, you should realize that as long as you keep insisting on the reality of legislation without being able to post a copy of that legislation or any credible source that mentions its existence, it will only hurt whatever cause you’re advocating for.
Are you willing to admit that the NAFTA Superhighway is a myth and that no plans for it ever existed outside the head of Ron Paul and a few other loonies?
Well, I think you are just being irrational. There IS evidence that plans are made to, overtime turn the United States, Canada and Mexico into one continental organization. There is overwhelming evidence. But, you don’t see Ron Paul talking about this, campaigning on it or otherwise making it an integral part of his platform, beyond his commitment to protect US sovereignty. What you may have heard on blogs or in conspiracy circles does not in any way reflect what Ron Paul believes. His beliefs are based on reading the bills that he votes on, understanding the agendas in Washington, knowing where money is appropriated, understanding the banking system and being aware of whats going on around him. He would never say anything that he didn’t have proof for.
Why don’t you show me one example of where he mentioned a highway or threat to sovereignty and he didn’t provide proof or examples of why he is concerned?
We’ve beaten the newsletter issue to death so many times already. But what if you left politics for a decade and had a full time medical practice to run? It is perfectly reasonable to think that he didn’t pay attention to politics or read the articles in the newsletters that were written. Its not as if they contained wall to wall racist stuff anyway. There were a few articles out of hundreds of newsletters were the writer engaged in race baiting tactics to sell a point. It is despicable. Even if he did read the occasional newsletter, he could have easily never seen the articles in question until a few years later. Like I said, he wasn’t involved in politics then. It clearly didn’t represent his views.
As far as the gold standard, I’ve said that Ron Paul doesn’t want to go back to what we had in the 19th century. He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, allow competing currencies and allow private money like what Nobel Laureate FA Hayek wanted. Ron Paul knew Hayek, and Rothbard and Mises. This guy won the Nobel prize! You think hes crazy too? Be consistent.
And I think you’re hallucinating this supposed evidence. Guess how impressed that makes me by your assessment of me as irrational?
Wait, so he doesn’t believe it now? Or is this just more desperate flailing?
Oh. So…let me get this straight:
Ron Paul makes predictions that turn out to be true: He’s a visionary.
Ron Paul makes predictions that turn out to be false: It’s great things aren’t as bad as he thought!
There’s clearly nothing Ron Paul could say that would lower your opinion of him, because, right or wrong, it just bolsters how awesome you think he is.
Well, not only have I posted a slew of predictions of his that are clearly false, your interpretation of things as “correct” is suspect: you said Ron Paul “predicted 9/11” based on this quote from him: “we’re liable to have more attacks on us by terrorists”.
So, not only have we got predictions that are clearly false, but your method of reasoning out what a prediction is and judging it “correct” in hindsight isn’t trustworthy.
Hayek did not win the Nobel Prize for advocating the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Plenty of Nobel laureates and other distinguished people have done brilliant work in certain areas while simultaneously advocating loony or crackpot ideas in other areas.
You know, the sad thing is that this sort of childlishly snotty condescension on your part is the least of the reasons that you’re completely failing to earn any respect for the positions you’re advocating here.
But in all seriousness, jrodefeld, I think you are doing an excellent job of helping people perceive Ron Paul as he deserves to be perceived, and this conversation is teaching people a great deal about what Paul thinks and the amount of respect his opinions are worth. Keep up the good work.
And all you other posters here who are ably assisting jrodefeld in this mission, thanks to you too. He couldn’t have done it without you.
John Edward 2012!
He could have his speeches written by Jefferson! Battles planned by Washington (or Patton, if you prefer)! Franklin could whisper sweet nothings to Carla Bruni!
It’s like an all-star lineup - all in ONE man!
Edward/Edward in 2012!
-joe
Hey, these sorts of prediction-interpretations have worked for renowned psychics for generations. How much more trustworthy can you get?
You know any Paulites? They’re basically all like this in my experience. My favorite is the one who is planning on his entire family moving (he’s single, I’m talking his uncles, aunts, sisters, etc) to Norway once Obama is enshrined as Emperor for life. Going there to get away from the socialism, I guess.
The whole financial meltdown was just so that International Bankers (a not even subtle code for “DA JOOZ!”) could perform a complete takeover of the world financial system.
-Joe
This is beautiful.
It’s reminiscent of a poster in a recent Pit thread who was taken to task for repeatedly making anti-Semitic remarks, and who tried to excuse himself by calling attention to all the board posts in which he hadn’t engaged in revolting bigotry. :rolleyes:
You don’t get major bonus points for only revealing that you’re a racist on limited occasions.
Strangely enough, I think a lot of people may see the same phenomena. Paul is clearly not just unelectable, but unsuited for the presidency. And yet his supporters are, for the most part, extremely zealous in their support. As such, a relative non-entity like Paul who people never knew about gets brought up in discussion and people who had no idea who or what he was realize that he’s a nutty weirdo who shouldn’t be leading a girlscout troop let alone the nation.
I didn’t know much about Paul either until the last election cycle when the fervor of his fans caused me to check him out. Absent that, I might have gone on thinking that he was just another Libertarian-esque candidate.
I’m going to change things up a little bit. It’s clear that none of you are willing to admit that Ron Paul is right about anything. Fine. We’re all entitled to our views. But if Ron Paul is advocating positions that you think are crazy, who’s side are you on? Do you think Obama is managing things just fine? How do you judge our economic problems and where things go from here? Ron Paul is just one man advocating an alternative. If you believe in a different alternative to current policies I would have more respect for you than if you are simply sticking up for Obama and the status quo. To more broadly understand where you all are coming from, why don’t you answer the following questions. I do think there is plenty of common ground that could be explored if you would stop bringing up newsletters, the gold standard and conspiracy theories. Anyway:
-
Do you support the war in Afghanistan? Do you support having troops in 130 countries and spending over a trillion dollars on our overseas empire?
-
Do you support auditing the Federal Reserve? Do you think Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan before him have done a good job managing the economy? How would you advocate reforming our banking system?
-
Do you support ending the war on drugs?
-
Do you support repealing the Patriot Act and stopping any more invasions of our civil liberties like the proposed National ID card?
-
Do you think our government needs to cut spending and balance the budget?
-
If you do agree with Ron Paul’s definition of the Constitution, what do you think about our founding document? Is it something we should follow? Should our politicians stop saying an oath to defend it?
-
As a basic principle, do you believe Free Enterprise and Capitalism is a good system for creating wealth and facilitating upward mobility in society?
-
How do you propose we reform Medicare and Social Security? Both have unfunded liabilities in excess of 60 Trillion dollars.
-
What do you think about the fact that Barack Obama has stacked his economics team with Wall Street insiders like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner and opposes transparency of our banking system? What about the fact that he received his largest donation from Goldman Sachs?
Its easy for you to try to pick out a fault of Ron Paul or some idea he has that you think is crazy, but what is your alternative? Do you think Obama is doing a good job? Please take the time to answer these questions so I know where you stand.
With any luck, we’ll have a six page thread on Lyndon LaRouche next.
No, that’s not what’s going on. Paul may be right now and then, but he’s a far cry from the visionary you make him out to be.
It’s as if you’re pointing to two dog turds in your toilet and trying to convince us your dog didn’t shit in our yard. You aren’t fooling anyone.
But these things are very important. Any human being is bound to have a mix of controversial and non-controversial positions, well-founded and ill-founded opinions. It’s very likely I agree with Ron Paul about something, but I also probably share a lot of common ground with most of the human race. We all think water is wet.
This doesn’t really help me choose whom to vote for. I can probably find some political common ground with most 20th century brutal dictators.
I care far more about the candidate’s most marginal positions. Can I at least empathize with them? Are they more less well-formed opinions that just proceed from different beliefs than mine about which there isn’t much room for argument? If the candidate’s most marginal beliefs are truly ill-informed or toxic, then all the common ground in the world doesn’t amount to very much.
Who are you to judge what is and isn’t a “crackpot” and “loony” idea? Why don’t you explain why competing currencies and private money wouldn’t work?
More broadly speaking, do you have any problem with the amount of power the banks have in American life? How do you think that happened? Because they were granted a monopoly power on the creation of money! They control how much the money in your pocket is worth. I’m saying that if you don’t want to put your trust in a secretive central bank, you should have alternatives.
Why don’t you explain to me why Hayek’s position (endorsed by many other economists and intellectuals) wouldn’t work?
You’re right that it was kind of a condescending thing to write. I doubt you would have given Ron Paul’s ideas any consideration no matter what I said, given the fact that immediately everybody started saying he’s crazy, loony, crackpot, etc without even thinking about the ideas or reading some of the literature.
It displays a significant insecurity to have to resort to names like crackpot, loon, conspiracy theorist to deal with new or different information. It seems like most here would rather not take the time to read anything about the economics, or watch the videos.
How many actually looked through the links and watched any of the youtube videos I linked to? How many have visited mises.org and read the articles or looked through the literature section? Very few, you can be sure.
Most would rather call names than have a discussion on an intellectual bases.
Because its not really about Ron Paul. Its about the message. There is a long line of brilliant economists that advocate the Austrian tradition. You think because it hasn’t been in vogue for thirty years, somehow it has been dis-proven and banished to the realms of crackpot, conspiracy nuts? Like our government never adopts bad policy. Plus considering we are in a mess right now economically due to Keynesian AND Monetarist schools of thought the notion that you should be condescending towards the one school of thought that got it right strikes me as foolish.
Also, Ron Paul’s foreign policy views have been backed up by a long line of brilliant historians and experts who also advocate not looking for war and being aggressive in our foreign policy. I have linked to a few of the books and literature. Again I am sure nobody will read them, but at least I made the effort.
I’m not asking anybody to agree with me. I am asking for a decent chance and to read the links I post and watch the videos and respond to what I post. That would be reasonable.
The attack on Afghanistan was politically necessary and justified. The problem was, after we won it, we didn’t leave. And then we botched it up in every way humanly possible. So you tell me if I support the war in Afghanistan.
I don’t support the war in Iraq.
I don’t care that we have military bases and foreign embassies in other countries.
I don’t trust your statement about “over a trillion dollars” and don’t think it’s meaningful anyway without breaking down where the money’s going and in what percentages. How much is Afghanistan, how much is Iraq, how much is in established bases and the like in friendly countries?
Define “auditing the Federal Reserve”. I don’t think you or Ron Paul could have done better with the economy. I would reinstate the regulations that were gutted, and perhaps add a few more. I would break apart banks and investment firms again. And I would NOT bring back the gold standard.
Yes.
ID cards aren’t a problem - I already have one, called a driver’s liscence. And yes, let’s repeal the Patriot act. It was never necessary.
No and yes, respectively. You can balance the budget without indiscriminately cutting spending for the sake of cutting spending. There’s this thing called “taxation” that civilized societies use; tax and spend.
I’m afraid I missed the part where Ron Paul had his own personal definition of the constitution. Regarding the normal definition of the constitution, we follow it, oaths or not, thanks to courts and such. Seriously, I’m having a hard time parsing the crazy here.
No. Regulated capitalism is a good system for allocating resources, far superior to communism or authoritarian declaration in that regard. It is demonstrably not reliable at creating wealth for the greater percentage of the population and it’s completely unreliable and no help at all at facilitating upward mobility.
Easy - I ignore the lie that they have unfunded liabilities in excess of 60 Trillion dollars. Poof! Problem gone.
Beyond that, to fix medicare I expand it to everyone making it UHC funded by taxation. This will change it from a program to aid those who are most likely to use it heavily into one of the widest-pool health insurance programs on the planet, with more than enough people who aren’t infirm paying in to reduce the average cost dramatically.
The obvious thing to do to fund social security better is remove the cap.
I don’t care even in the slightest, since there’s no indication yet that this ‘stacking’ has caused or will cause real problems. Hiring insiders would seem to be a necessary evil if you want people who know what they’re doing. Would you expect Ron Paul to appoint plumbers?
Obama could be better, he could be worse. If he was a lunatic conspiracy theorist, I’d expect him to do worse.