Thats not true. I don’t think he is always right. He is right more of the time than anybody else I know in our government. And on the very big issues he has been right. Plus, he makes long term predictions which don’t always pan out right away. And, yes, sometimes he is wrong. And sometimes events are planned and then dropped. Like Bush and Cheney wanted to invade Iran before his term was up, but the couldn’t get away with it. I just believe he has correctly fore-casted many things that turned out to be true. Even if this wasn’t the case, I would still believe his foreign policy and economic policy are superior to what we have been dealing with.
Ron Paul advocates that foreign policy actions has what the CIA terms blowback, unintended consequences and an elicited hatred from the region. Ron Paul is the only one I know who knew that the continual bombing and sanctions against Iraq in the 90s were likely to result in a hatred directed towards us and terrorist attacks. This is crucial. If we don’t understand that, how can we avoid further attacks in the future? We should bring bin laden to justice, but we should also not be stirring up hornets nests around the world with a misguided foreign interventionist policy.
Austrian economics is significantly out of the mainstream. There are only a handful of universities that I know of that even have economists who work in this framework. Austrians have definitely had some useful insights, but the problem is, Austrian economics is both anti-empirical and mostly wrong.
You can’t just put your head in the sand and pretend like this stuff doesn’t exist. It has been discussed on cable news networks, like some of the above clips prove. Are all these people hallucinating? There is an awful lot of people worried about the same thing. Maybe it is you who are misinformed. Seriously, how do you respond to these videos?
No, he believes that it does exist, but you are painting him as someone who goes around promoting conspiracy theories all day long. His platform is based on monetary policy, economic reforms, a new foreign policy, cutting spending and following the constitution. He believes in national sovereignty.
Dude, are you even fucking paying attention? Ron Paul is not a racist, the writer of those few articles that showed up under his name when he was back home practicing medicine is a racist. I’m saying that they were few and far between so even if Ron Paul occasionally read one of the newsletters he likely missed anything racist in its contents.
Okay to clarify, Ron Paul = Tolerant libertarian whose personal heroes are Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr and who had more African American support than any other Republican candidate.
Anonymous writer of a few articles: a racist who used race baiting tactics to criticize welfare recipients (this was unfortunately fairly common in the late 80s, early 90s.
Can we drop this shit already? I already said its not really about Paul anyway, its about the message of liberty and respect for the Constitution. Ron Paul has written extensively condemning racism.
So this thread is not about Paul. Fine. That’s great because I’ve heard more than enough about him, enough to conclude that he is someone I want to keep far away from any locus of power, and most of that I learned from your posts about him. But yes, I am for liberty and for respecting the Constitution. And world peace. And ending world hunger. And ice cream, I like ice cream. And against evil, hate that evil stuff.
Probably very few of us are against liberty and respecting the Constitution I think. We just may disagree about what being for those things means.
That’s enough. begbert2 and jrodefeld, I’m warning both of you for these repeated insults. (That’s the second for you in this thread, jrodefeld.) Take these insults to the Pit and leave them out of this forum.
This also applies to everybody else: the discussion of whether or not Paul is a loon (which I’ve engaged in myself) is pulling this thread off track. So let’s drop the speculation about the sanity of any particular idea and stick to whether or not it’s right or wrong, and why.
Glad to hear it. I fully support liberty and respect for the Constitution. That doesn’t mean I have to support a nutjob like Ron Paul just because he happens to be marketing a “message” of liberty and respect for the Constitution.
You’re trying to persuade us that any issues where we agree with what Ron Paul advocates are compelling reasons for us to support him, while any issues on which we differ with Ron Paul should be ignored or discounted. This kind of blatantly biased illogic is not going to get you anywhere but laughed at.
You were composing your post when I made mine, Kimstu, but I’m posting again as a reminder: ‘Ron Paul is a loon’ is off-limits for the rest of this thread. Pretty much any and all comments about non-posters are usually kosher here but this is dragging the thread down.
To begbert2, at least you answered the questions, even though some of your answers are fucking crazy, no offense.
Yes, the war in Afghanistan was justified initially to get Bin Laden. Ron Paul supported this effort. Your right that we should be out of there by now.
Right about the Iraq war as well.
I care that we have military bases and foreign embassies in other countries and so should you. First of all, it is completely wasteful spending. We are just building up the military industrial complex. I believe we should respect other nations sovereignty and right to self determination. I believe the purpose of our military is to defend this nation, not to police the world.
Here is a chart of global military expenditures in 2008:
The United States spends twice the next 10 countries combined. Do you think this is responsible spending? Do we need to do this? What is the point?
I’m surprised you don’t know about this. Ron Paul has lead a charge to bring transparency to our banking system to see who the Federal Reserve bailed out and why, and exactly what are they doing with our money. This is a completely bipartisan effort with Ron Paul teaming with Alan Grayson (a democrat) in Congress and Bernie Sanders (a socialist) and Jim Demint (a conservative) in the Sentate. The banking interests are fighting against this because it would expose all the shenanigans that have gone on in our financial system over the last decade.
Watch this:
So, people in Congress and the Senate are listening to Ron Paul’s ideas on financial reform. Why won’t you listen? Who could argue against transparency?
The White House, by the way, is against this common sense reform. Your boy Obama, who ran on change and transparency in government, is siding with the banks and Wall Street against the people.
Good, we agree completely here. You know, Ron Paul and the Libertarians have been much more consistent on this issue than the Democrats. If you really want to end the war on drugs, you would support libertarians.
I’m not talking about drivers licenses. I’m talking about completely unnecessary national ID cards to keep track of every individual. Look at this:
If we want to prevent illegal immigration, we just need to enforce existing laws not take away every bodies civil liberties. Its just an excuse to crack down on the American people. Your right about the Patriot Act, lets get rid of that shit. And again, Obama reauthorized it. It seems he doesn’t care about civil liberties anymore than Bush did.
What do you mean “indiscriminately” cutting spending? This type of attitude is what frustrates me about liberals I talk to. Do you even think there is a limit to how much the government can spend? Do you think that the laws of economics don’t apply to the government? Is there even a ceiling to how much the government can spend? Obviously there is, and we can’t sustain current spending, much less add more.
You talk about “taxation”? Do you know that if everybody was taxed 100% of their income it wouldn’t cover the budget. The current spending is maintained only though a fraudulent system of paper money and inflation combined with pyramiding of debt. This is where it would benefit you to learn some economics.
Here, I’ll even help you out. Watch this documentary called The Money Masters, about our banking system:
If we had honest money, government would have to be smaller because we simply can’t afford a government the size we have. Its functions would have to be paid for through direct taxation, or borrowing from other nations. Deficits would be kept in check and people would have more power over their own lives.
We HAVE to cut spending however. Come on, I’m sure you can think of wasteful government spending that we could cut. We’re not going to get to a balanced budget through tax increases.
Why not end the overseas empire and cut defense spending drastically, then we could fund Medicare and Social Security? That is Ron Paul’s position and it makes a lot of sense.
The Constitution is designed to limit government power. It is an express list of functions delegated to the federal government. Mainly, run the military, the courts and write laws and a few other functions. As the 10th Amendment clearly states, everything not explicitly authorized in the constitution is reserved to the states and to the people. That is our system of government.
We DO NOT follow the constitution. At all. “Thanks to the courts”, you say? The courts have systematically trashed the meaning of the constitution making it a blank paper, by construction as Thomas Jefferson warned.
Seriously, have you read the Federalist Papers? The founders gave us a way to change the constitution. Its called Amending the Constitution. We have dropped this concept and resorted to ignoring the constitution.
This is crazy, you say? The only thing that is crazy is your dismal lack of knowledge of our founding document. Heres a few links to help you out:
http://www.liberty1.org/thoughts.htm
There is wisdom for the ages contained in those documents and writings. You would do well to study them and absorb that information.
“Regulated” capitalism, you say? So you don’t believe in capitalism at all? What do you believe in? Socialism? Communism? Fascism? Free Enterprise is the only system in the world that creates a vibrant healthy middle class, and lifts the most number of people out of poverty. The problem is, we don’t have capitalism AT ALL in this country anymore. We have Corporatism. This, in many ways is the worst system. In all authoritarian governments, the end result is the very very wealthy and the very poor. This is the standard in most nations throughout history.
This country was different. We established the greatest, most egalitarian nation on earth through the principles of property rights, free enterprise and economic liberty. We had a vibrant healthy middle class. People around the world would do anything to get here just to have a shot at the American Dream.
You say that Free Enterprise is no help at all in facilitating upward mobility? Where do you think the term American Dream came from? It was the common occurrence that people could go from Rags to Riches in a single lifetime. It happened frequently during the Industrial Revolution and during the first half of the 20th Century. That was when we had free markets and entrepreneurship and economic liberty. That doesn’t happen that much anymore. Big government allied with Big business is a rejection of all the principles of free markets. That is why our nation has gone down the tubes.
“Ignore the lie”, huh? Well, actually I undershot the actual figure. There is actually a $107 Trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities! Look here:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662
See, you are living in a fantasy land and you dare to criticize Ron Paul for being loony? Give me a break. You think the answer to a $107 Trillion dollar unfunded liability is to expand benefits to everyone! You are comedy, man, pure and simple. Taxes won’t cover the shortfall. The hard facts are that we need to cut these benefits over time. There is no other way.
That is why Ron Paul’s transition plan to balance the budget is the only plan that makes any sense. He says we should bring all our troops home, slash the military budget, take care of the people who are dependent on these programs while allowing young people to opt out. Then we could take care of the people who need help now while easing people away from government dependence.
You need to live in reality man.
You should care. There is plenty of indication that this will cause real problems. The banks are robbing this country blind and screwing over the American taxpayer and you think this is a necessary evil? They don’t know what they are doing. Obama could have chosen independent outside economists and experts, he could favor an Audit of the Federal Reserve and transparency of government, but he doesn’t. He is a corporatist of the first order. And you are okay with this.
I thought liberals were supposed to care about the poor and needy, not the greedy Wall Street banks and corporations. My mistake.
I appreciate that. Not that I can’t take it, but people just writing that Ron Paul is a loon, nutjob, conspiracy wacko, or any other insult without any thought or effort to explain why his views on foreign policy, economics, civil liberties, etc are wrong is getting pretty old. Obviously not everyone has to agree with Ron Paul, but he is giving a pretty standard libertarian message that many share. And he has some pretty sensible solutions for a lot of our problems. If you would only give him a chance.
Also, I was composing a post when you made that thread where I called begbert2’s answers to my questions “fucking crazy” which is probably against the rules too. Sorry about that.
To be fair Marley, most of the point of the OP seemed to be that Paul is a good candidate in some regard. How he will be perceived by the electorate is a key point in the fact that he’s unelectable. Likewise, that a bunch of positions that he endorses are nonsensical is a reason why he’s not just unelectable, but would serve as a dangerous leader of the United States.
We’d also need some solid links and no more YouTube crap if we’re going to actually disscuss any positions, ideally with specifics rather than “Embassies and military bases in other countries is being the world police and denying sovereignty, plus, ya know, the Constitution and Liberty are good.”
Except for the numerous parts that many people don’t share. For some reason, you’re asking us to ignore or discount all the specific parts of his beliefs and policies that we disagree with, while giving him credit for the parts that we do agree with. Why should I give Ron Paul or any other politician that much benefit of the doubt?
That’s what you’re entirely failing to convince people of. Based on what Ron Paul says, what he seems to have is not “pretty sensible solutions”, but rather a lot of vague pro-liberty-and-puppies waffle-speak and a lot of specific solutions that are not widely regarded as sensible.
A genuinely viable candidate for high office doesn’t have to beg and plead for voters to “give him a chance”. Rather, he persuades voters to give him a chance by rationally convincing them that his ideas are good and/or that he’s the least of the currently available evils.
Ron Paul has signally failed to inspire any such conviction in more than a tiny minority of voters. That’s not our doing. That’s his doing.
We’re on page six, so I think we have established that some people think he’s crazy. The point has been made, so let’s move on.
It is. In the future, use the preview function and check if other posts have been made while you’re composing your own. You appear to have missed a couple of mod notes because of this.
There’s been some of that, but there’s been no shortage of discussion of his views on economics in particular. If you want to make some progress, you need to stop telling people they are refusing to think about your candidate’s ideas or that they are ignorant. Summing up his positions instead of asking people to wade through YouTube would probably help, too.
A vague claim like that is almost certainly “true”, for certain values of true. How many Jews does it take to qualify as “many”, after all? And what position in what institution qualifies you as a “central banker”? It’s the kind of vague, non-refutable claim that makes great conspiracy fodder; it would be surprising if there weren’t at least some Jews, somewhere high up in the banking industry.
Well, it certain sounds like classical conspiracy theorizing, but I’d like to see what Rodfeld’s cite is and how many people in what specifics positions he considers “many central bankers”.
I’m not sure he even has such a cite and it isn’t being repeated by him as some sort of urban legend, but I’d love to see what his actual data is.
Why is it that Ron Paul supporters (and 9/11 CTists) always seem to formulate their arguments based on a lengthy series of 3 hour “documentaries” they expect everyone else to watch before trying to argue with them?
IOW, jrodefeld, nobody is going to spend 3 and a half hours watching a documentary you suggest. See if you can formulate a cogent argument without telling someone to read a book or watch a video. That might help your credibility, and prove you actually understand the argument you’re trying to make.
I’m honestly not sure at all if you have a point you are trying to make anymore.
Ron Paul won the CPAC Straw Poll. When Ron Paul wins nationally promoted straw polls, it creates the perception he can win. Ron will win the next CPAC poll as well, next February.
Ron Paul just won his House seat primary by a whopping 70%. He won 81% to 11%. Ron Paul will grab more headlines when he wins the general election in November.
This creates the perception Ron can win. The greatest enemy to Ron is the mass media created perception that he can’t win.
Ron Paul has often been described as irrelevant because he has never sponsored major legislation into law, nor has he ever even gained national media for his legislation. That has now changed. Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill has passed the House with 317 sponsors, and is in the Senate with over 30 sponsors. This legislation is not going away. It will keep Ron Paul in the news during all of this year and 2011 for his legislative work. Rand Paul in the Senate also makes a big difference here.
The Tea Party movement backs Ron Paul. The only other leading GOP contender who has any tea party appeal is Sarah Palin. Mitt Romney is a phony and is not fooling anyone.
Every four years, we get an age shift in voters. New young voters tend to back Ron Paul, while old voters who have died since 2008 do not support Ron Paul. A four year shift is about 7% of the electorate.
Newspapers are against Ron Paul; they are going out of business or their circulation is declining. The Internet supports Ron Paul and it is on the rise.
Paul’s leading contenders are Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee (if he runs).
All these candidates have weaknesses.
Huckabee has a cushy TV job, and doesn’t seem ambitious enough to run.
Palin is widely viewed as unqualified to be president and has less money than Ron Paul. Her poll numbers are very weak at this time, considering her immense media coverage.
Romney is a strong candidate, but he is a Mormon which hurts him among Christian conservatives. He was also a pro-abortion liberal governor of Massachusetts who now says he is a pro-life conservative. In other words, he’s a phony. He does not anywhere near the organization of Ron Paul. And Romney supported Romneycare.
Pawlenty is the NWO choice for president. But he has low name recognition and is boring. He’s also a liberal republican Governor from Minnesota with little appeal for conservatives. He is counting on the NWO media to help him.
The Economy; the weak economy plays into Ron Paul’s hands to some extent.
End the Fed - Ron Paul’s book gives him another outlet for his message. Unlike Mitt Romney’s book, which is stone cold boring, people actually read Ron Paul’s books. ** Ron has another book coming out before the next election.**
Ron Paul is good for TV ratings and is getting a lot of national TV interviews on cable news like Fox, CNN, MSNBC and CNBC. Rand Paul is also getting a lot of national TV interviews. Judge Napolitano has a new TV show on Fox that promotes Paul’s ideas.
Voters are getting used to Ron Paul’s “odd” ideas.
Ron Paul is 74, but has the health and spunk of a 60 year old; he’s not too old to run for president and serve one term in office.
Fund-raising - In the 4th quarter of 2007, Ron Paul was the # 1 GOP fundraiser. This was when he was below 10% in the polls. He will raise a lot more if he is at 10%-30% in the polls. Ron Paul could end up with more money to spend than Mitt Romney.
There is a $10 million dollar moneybomb already set up for the Boston Tea Party on December 16.
The NWO sets the pecking order when they start to do polls in early 2011. In 2007, Ron Paul was at 1% in these polls. Ron Paul will be at a minimum of 10% in the early 2011 polls, putting him among the viable contenders from the beginning.
The Wars in the Middle East - People are getting sick of these wars, and Ron Paul opposes them. Democrats who found out Obama was a phony might support Ron Paul.
2012 is the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, and will gain national attention. Interesting that the president during the War of 1812 was none other than James Madison, the Father of the U.S. Constitution.
James Madison is the ONLY president to follow the Constitution during a major war. Despite an invasion from the British Empire that included the burning of Buffalo and Washington, a siege upon Baltimore, and attack on New Orleans, the capture of Detroit, an Atlantic ocean naval blockade, and a secession movement in Hartford, Connecticut, James Madison never claimed special war powers, arrested dissidents, issued war propaganda, had a draft, or suspended habeas corpus, despite going up against the worlds greatest power with no income tax, no central bank, and not much of an army of navy. And we won it, gaining free trade for all American on the Great Lakes, Atlantic ocean, Mississippi river, West Indies, and Mediterranean Sea.
Word of what James Madison did in the War of 1812 might leak out to the people in 2011 and 2012.
A lot of people are getting sick of the war on drugs. Neither Bush or Obama will even consider legalizing medical marijuana, an issue which polls at 80% in favor of.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who can talk intelligently about the U.S. Constitution.
People are sick of the health care bill, and Ron Paul has credibility in opposing it. Ron Paul is also a medical doctor.
The Campaign For Liberty, Ron Paul’s PAC, is raising lots of cash and forging many ties with key GOP leaders at the state level.
Rand Paul got the endorsements of the Ronald Reagan PAC, Sarah Palin, Steve Forbes, and the Gun Owners of America. Expect to see Ron Paul get some major endorsements, if Rand Paul can. Rand also got endorsements from Jim Bunning, Jim DeMint, Kentucky Right-to-Life, the Kentucky Credit Union Association, and James Dobson.
Ron Paul voted against all the bank bailouts.
Ron Paul has an army of volunteers that will hit every straw poll, from CPAC to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, to the county GOP straw poll at the annual meeting of John Doe County in all 50 States. He is going to win almost all of them.
Ron Paul has enough support to win the Ames Iowa Straw Poll in the summer of 2011. He got 1300 votes in 2007, and needs only about 5000 to win.
Ron Paul tied for first in the Southern Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll on April 11. Ron will rpobabaly win the critical Value Voters Summit Straw poll on September 19 in Washington, DC, a key religious right event.
Young people will talk their parents and grandparents into voting for Ron Paul. They will vote for their children’s future.
Ron Paul always shines in the TV debates. This time around he will get more attention by the post debate pundits.
Ron Paul can win the Iowa Caucus.
Ron Paul has enough support lined up to win the Nevada caucus and the Louisiana Caucus, both of which precede Super Tuesday. Ron needs to run a smarter campaign this time for the New Hamphire primary, perhaps using Rand Paul’s strategy. If he does, he can win NH.
