Its also not from Ron Paul. It was from a hired writer engaged in race baiting tactics that Ron Paul never met. He leant his name to a newsletter and was unaffiliated with it for many years.
In other words he did something totally moronic and is now trying to avoid criticism for it. You’re taking his word for it, right?
Ron Paul doesn’t have a lot of supporters, period. So it’s not possible that he has a lot of black supporters. I doubt very many of his supporters are black but I admit I don’t know.
Again… you’re kidding yourself. Black people aren’t abandoning Obama. And they’re not going to vote for Ron Paul. Even if you ignore the racist comments, Paul’s views are very different from most Democratic voters and most black voters (who go for the Democrat around 90 percent of the time in presidential elections). You can’t seriously believe a large number of black voters are going to choose Ron Paul over Obama.
They won’t.
You’re arguing for fiscal responsibility and arguing the government should waste a lot of money and time by revisiting issues that have long been definitively settled. Does that strike you as a little bit ironic?
Yes, I’ve heard all this before. You’re taking his word for it and I’ve never heard any proof for his defense. If he’s telling the truth, he did something stupid and irresponsible despite attaching his name to the newsletter. If he’s not telling the truth… it doesn’t really matter because he does not have the ability to be more than a fringe candidate.
You have to explain yourself more thoroughly if you want to be taken seriously. Why exactly are Ron Paul’s ideas on economics wrong? Try reading Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and the great classical economists. If you or anyone else, wants to make the charge that someone is crazy, you need to be able to back it up.
Great administrator, has a newsletter go out under his own name whose content he claims not to even know. I want this man running my nation.
You too. “Kooky”? Is that just a deflection of the fact that he may challenge you to rethink your views? He may not be elected, but tell me why he is wrong philosophically.
Is Keynes not a great classical economist?
Well, that is pretty sad. As esteemed intellectual, a lifetime of serious study of economics and history, and you judge his qualifications based on an ambush by Sacha Baron Cohen?
If you are thinking that this somehow proves that Ron Paul is homophobic, don’t even go there. His campaign advisor was gay. He was cornered in a hotel room by an aggressive guy thirty five years younger than him. And he reacted pretty calmly and reasonably. I do like Sacha Baron Cohen, but some of his stunts are pretty unfair to the participants.
As I’ve said to others, tell me why he is wrong on the issues. Put some effort into your responses.
That’s because she thinks “Gold Standard” is the name of a jewelry store in Anchorage.
I’m for a Paul - Palin ticket myself. Mickey Mouse would get more votes. I also strongly support a 3rd Party run by him. I’d donate. 
Perhaps you can illuminate me on when, exactly, Ron Paul caught on to the racist writings made in his name?
Because this story quotes racist or otherwise questionable statements made in his newsletters in December 1989, undated “early” 1990, November 1990, June 1991, June 1992, October 1992, and March 1994. Are you saying it took five years for Ron Paul to catch on that he had racists writing newsletters in his name? Five years?!?
And how do you explain his April 1995 appearance at a Southern secessionism conference, and his apparent view that the Civil War was “not necessary?”
Do you get a nickel for every link to YouTube?
There’s a tendency in Japanese language and culture to fail to distinguish the difference between “I understand” and “I agree.” “If someone understands my position, how could they possibly disagree with it?”
You seem to be committing the same fallacy. I understand Mr. Paul’s questionable history on race just fine, I just don’t agree with it. I understand Mr. Paul’s effort to return the United States to the late 19th century, I just don’t agree with it. I understand Mr. Paul wants to disengage the United States from the rest of the world, I just don’t agree with it. Stop accusing others of not being acquainted with these extremist positions just because they are criticizing them.
Did the US government in any way intentionally plot, assist, or carry out the 9/11 attacks in order to kill thousands of people? I’m asking your opinion of what you know to this date.
I’ll buy that Paul didn’t write the articles himself, but the various racist articles in the newsletter appeared over a five year period. I find it pretty unlikely that the contents of the “Ron Paul Newsletter”, written in a style that was obviously ment to suggest Paul was himself writing the articles were completely unknown to him. His family worked on the staff of the newsletters, his former chief of staff ran it (and was probably the one doing most of the actual writting). And even if he totally avoided reading the thing for five years, I suspect that over the course of five years someone would’ve brought to his attention that his newsletter was being used to sell conspiracy thories, racist messages and other insanity.
Paul may not be racist, but I think he pretty clearly understands that part of the appeal of his “states rights” message is to people who are angry about the federal governments ending of segregation. And, at least in the early 90’s, he wasn’t above using this appeal to increase his visibility as a Presidential Candidate (he ran in '88 as the Libertarian Party candidate, and briefly in '92 before deciding to join the campaign of famous non-racist Pat Buchannan).
Not really, no. He’s a nut, an anti-vax, 9/11 Troof nutter.
Calling him an intellectual heavy won’t make it so. Even if you repeat it very often.
For those who might not be aware, these books are from 1940, 1944, 1946 and 1963 respectively. Economics has moved forward just a bit since then. This is kind of like expecting to understand the structure of the Moon by reading books on it written in the 1950s.
BTW, you are aware that Greenspan is a disciple of Ayn Rand, aren’t you? Or do you consider her a damn commie?
Hey, I’m an anti-VAXer. I used a 3B-20 back in those days.
Okay, so you admit he was right about Iraq and Afghanistan and he was right about the financial meltdown, but hes an idiot, a maniac and just plain nuts? Does the term cognitive dissonance ring a bell?
Most democrats only pretended to oppose the war. They unconstitutionally transferred authority over waging war to the executive, then said. “oh, but I didn’t think he would use it.” What bullshit. I’m talking about Congress asserting its constitutional authority to wage war. And why did no Democrats after 2006 vote to defund the war? They weren’t really antiwar, they just didn’t have the courage to actually take a stand. They just wanted to be able to blame it on Bush if it went badly.
And yes in fact Ron Paul was one of the very few to foresee the fundamental problems in this economy. I’m not talking about 2005-2006, when anybody with a brain should have been able to see it coming (the fact that most did not is not much of an endorsement to the economics profession), I’m talking about before the bursting of the Nasdaq bubble. I’m talking about more than a decade before, during the Clinton Administration.
I never said no one else predicted it, but watch this: (Austrian Peter Schiff vs brainless Keynesians on financial news shows):
Peter Schiff was an advisor to the Ron Paul campaign. Smart minds think alike.
“Real” economists? Are Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Nobel Laureate FA Hayek, and Murray Rothbard real economists? Do you know ANYTHING about the Austrian school of economics? You think these jokers on tv and in Obama’s economic “recovery” team are real economists? Give me a break. The big banks and corporations have hijacked the economics profession and displaced the superior ideas of the classical economists. If you doubt this, look at this link from the Huffington Post:
I’ve already addressed this point. Ron Paul is not a racist and those are not his views. In fact they weren’t racist newsletters. They were newsletters were the editor hired a few individuals who participated in race baiting tactics. Ron Paul never knew them and didn’t know until after the fact.
This certainly doesn’t discredit Ron Paul’s views on policy issues.
This is a minor point if there ever was one. There is overwhelming evidence that there are/were plans for such a highway. The highway isn’t the issue. There is or were plans made to merge Canada, Mexico and the United States into one like the European Union. Its not going to happen overnight, nor will they necessarily get away with it. But there are individuals who believe in globalism who would like to see this happen. Just because you are ignorant of the facts doesn’t make it untrue.
Read up a little bit.
And this is so much worse than the other politicians who take money from corporate lobbyists, Goldman Sachs, military contractors and banking firms? Do you want him to screen everyone of his donations to see what the views of the donors are? Don’t be ridiculous. People donate to support his views, he doesn’t have to support theirs.
If thats all you got, then you make a very weak argument. Why not tell me why his foreign policy views are wrong. Tell me why his concerns about the dollar and our financial system are wrong. Why is it better to prop up bad debt and put the taxpayer on the hook for the wrongdoings of a few bankers rather than liquidating debt and allowing the correction to occur?
You gotta get into the substance of his positions. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to actually have some serious disagreements with him on his most important issues.
Most people don’t pay attention to the primary debates. They just vote for whoever they see in the media over and over. But think about it, Ron Paul went from somebody who nobody had ever heard of to beating all Republicans in fundraising and have more grassroots enthusiasm than any other candidate, left or right, in less than nine months. That was all due to his performance in the debates and in media interviews. That is not enough time to win the primaries, but it demonstrates an exponential increase in support. Consider this:
1st quarter 2007, he raised like $700,000, 2nd quarter, he raised 2.7 million, 3rd quarter he raised 6 million, and in the 4th quarter he raised 20 million.
That is exponential growth. Plus he had grassroots organization spontaneously getting behind him.
He won every post debate poll asking who won the debates.
The general election debates are different. Everybody pays attention then. Remember Ross Perot and how well he did in 1992 based off his performance? Then they shut out third parties from the debates. Elections can literally be one on the performance in the general election debates.
If Ron Paul gets there, he will be the next president.
Name calling. Typical. A crutch used by weak minded people who have no intellectual challenge to his ideas. Have you read any of Ron Paul’s books or writings? How about Austrian literature? I’ll even help you out.
Visit this webpage: http://mises.org/
Click on the literature tab and read up on Real economics. You’ll find out what caused the Great Depression, why the deficits have exploded and what causes recessions and depressions.
Pay close attention to the Misesian Theory of the Business Cycle.
If you do this, we can continue this conversation.
No, I still think its a long shot. But he will be a contender. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not he can win, he is certainly right philosophically. Even if he had zero chance of winning I would still support him because I like aligning myself with the Truth. I can sleep better at night that way.
But lets focus this discussion on whether or not he is right or wrong philosophically. You need to elaborate on why you think he is wrong, or a crackpot or whatever other insult you choose to use.
Keep it intellectual. You need to actually read a little about Austrian economics, US history and constitutional law to understand what hes talking about before you marginalize him.
I’m guessing that the jrodefeld is about 18 years old. I was that excited and enthusiastic about John Anderson when I was 18. Over the years I learned my lesson: a party outsider isn’t going to get the party’s nomination and a third party candidate will only serve to divide the vote of the major party candidate she is closest to. (Ralph Nader divided the vote deliberately.)
I think Ron Paul is a pleasant gentleman with ideas that will not work and he will never get the chance to prove otherwise. I do not think his ideas should get a chance to work. A gold standard is an awful idea. Eliminating social security is an awful idea. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most voters. That doesn’t mean that Paul isn’t doing a service in promulgating these ideas, he is and I thank him.
Look, if you want to make any valid points at all, stop saying that people here are ignorant of the Austrian school. I took a class with Professor George Viksnins, who literally wrote the book on Joseph Schumpeter. Don’t tell me I know nothing of the Austrian school, I’ve had an ass full of it.
And let me tell you something: even Professor Viksnins would laugh at this blind adulation for one economic philosophy.
First of all, text message and online polls are neither conclusive nor representative of public opinion.
Second of all, wrong.
None of that is true. And he obviously believes not only that there’s going to be a highway, but that it’s a facist plot. Unless he runs his web site the same way he ran his newsletter, that is.
People already told you why he’s wrong about the dollar.
People have explained this to you in previous threads, and you ignored them.
As debate tactics go, threatening not to take someone seriously is rarely effective.
Paul got plenty of media attention.
How long has he been in Congress?
And yet he came nowhere close to winning. He did well with fundraising, it’s true. He and his people did a good job turning his online support into donations. I don’t know how much that had to do with Paul as opposed to the skill set of the people who supported him, but that did happen. And then when people got around to the relatively unimportant task of voting, he was noncompetitive.
It’s arithmetic, not exponential. 
Don’t say exponential when you mean “really fast.” If his support had grown exponentially, $700,000 in the first quarter would have turned into $490,000,000,000 in the second quarter.
You’re grasping at straws. I’m sorry, but winning a poll online does not mean anything. They’re unscientific polls and die-hards crash the vote. 5,000 people voting 100 times each for Ron Paul does not prove the public thinks he won.
Perot didn’t win. I agree the Republicans and Democrats collude on the debates and it’s not in anyone’s best interest except their own.
He won’t, and he won’t. And you’re showing a lot of faith considering he wasn’t able to do anything except raise money after the Republican debates. He still couldn’t get a lot of people to vote for him.
Okay, I’ve heard a lot of this nonsense about how the Gold Standard is a crazy idea and its nuts to even consider. If you believe that, please carefully read through these links and tell me, point by point why they are wrong:
The Gold Standard and Its Future, by T.E. Gregory, Professor of Economics in the University of London
Honest Money: The Biblical Blueprint for Money and Banking, by Gary North
Ludwig von Mises on Money and Inflation, A Synthesis of Several Lectures, by Ludwig von Mises
http://mises.org/books/mises_money.pdf
Money: Its Connexion With Rising And Falling Prices by Edwin Cannan, Emeritus Professor of Political Economy in the University of London
I have read tons of this literature. I actually watch the Fed hearings. The idea that the Gold Standard, or backing our currency with some tangible asset to maintain stability of our financial system and protect against runaway government spending and deficits is crazy is insulting to all the great economists and thinkers throughout the centuries. Considering these esteemed intellectuals have been proven right over and over doesn’t seem to phase you.
You don’t have to agree, but you can’t believe that it is a crazy idea to back our money with something. We did this all the way until 1971! It worked out pretty well for us. We were the most prosperous nation in the world.
You should take back any comment to the effect that a gold standard is a crazy crackpot, fringe idea. Even many economists who disagree, when pressed will acknowledge the value of the Austrian perspective.
Read a little more, before disparaging something you know nothing about.
Attention jrodefeld.
This is the last time I will tell you to stop doing this. The next time you make an insulting comment like this you’ll start getting formal warnings.