He certainly had significant support from racist organizations like Stormfront. Support he refused to repudiate, interestingly enough.
Are you not paying attention? Ron Paul never made any racist statements, okay? He leant his name to a newsletter which hired and fired people he never met. He was out of politics, back home practicing medicine when these statements appeared in those newsletters. He has rejected those statements many times. I can name many politicians that have actually done things far worse things that actually affected this country negatively.
Why bring this up repeatedly? Its old news. If you want to claim Ron Paul is a racist, I challenge you to find one thing Ron Paul actually said that was even remotely racist.
This is an old smear. It is the only one opponents have considering his ideological consistency and principles. You can always resort to guilt by association.
Absolutely right. I’m going to give props to any and all supportive comments I get because I know I will not get many on this board.
Multiple people have said this. In this thread. On this page of this thread.
The point of the issue was that you said we were going to war with Iran. Marley said he doubted that was true, and as evidence to the contrary you said we had sanctions on Iran and that “Sanctions are the first step to war.” My reply was that we’d had sanctions on Iran since Jimmy Carter, and that if they were leading to war, they certainly weren’t going to do so today. Now your equivocating with a bunch of random aspects of Iran/US relations, with no reference to your original point.
I think your generally dodging peoples responses in this thread. I realize your very devoted to Paul’s ideas, but I think you have to at least consider the idea that Economic thought has moved beyond where it was circa ~1930 and that the reasons for this may not be all driven by a conspiracy of politicians and bankers.
He ran for President once, started to a second time and worked as an advisor on Pat Buchannan’s '92 campaign during that time. Also see post #122
No, hes not. He’s a crackpot and his theories are ridiculous. He said don’t worry about deficits because “in the end we are all dead”. Does this strike you as responsible? He’s dead, we are all alive to pick up the pieces of the mess he left for us.
Well, if you think it should be something other than the gold standard backing US currency, then what? Nickle? Iron? Oil? Some other commodity? A basket of commodities? And under what circumstances could you demand your “basket” instead of the bank note? What you are doing is asking a sovereign government for collateral. Okay. Full collateral, partial collateral? When a run is made on that collateral, and the government has all the paper and coins, then what are people to use for money?
How about backing currency with “the full faith and credit of the government of the United States of America?” Faith. It’s worked for 40 years, and looks like it will continue to work in the future as long as more money isn’t added to the system (printed is too restrictive) to the point where inflation reduces the value paid. That will require discipline and work, but less than putting a system into place where the money is backed by commodities. If there is a run on the “full faith and credit” the market does not become glutted with anything other than dollars as people turn to other currencies. Remember that as a practical matter we are responsible to all 300 million people living in the country. We can’t have a basket of commodities that protects all of them. Gold, or Rottweilers or Guns, or Butter will only protect those who hold those commodities, not the other people who the scarcity will leave out in the cold, which will be 95 percent of us, regardless of which commodity or commodities we use. The only thing we do have a sufficient supply of is dollars (or other fiat currency), either in printed, minted or virtual form. And everybody agrees on its use.
Any banknote, check, or traded commodity is based on liquidity: that it will be widely honored. Hoarding gold does not ensure that it will be honored. Between 1933 and 1972 US currency was backed by gold, but those claims could not legally be honored. It was a fiction.
Yes, money is a fiction. But it is a fiction that makes our modern economy work in a fashion superior to all past economies. It is not without risk, but gold has risks too, as do all other commodities combinations. Fiat currency has risks that occur less frequently and are smaller when they occur. Those risks can be reduced to the extent that government will effectively regulate markets. As anathema as regulated markets are to libtards, regulated markets are far more profitable for far more people than unregulated markets, which are where the little guy gets fleeced by the big guy with insider information. That happened regularly and legally before regulation. When regulation is lax, it happens a lot less.
In summary, gold standards are for people who expect a collapse of civilization. Fair and regulated markets are for people who want civilization to continue.
I’ve known very little about Ron Paul. Through this thread I’ve learned a little bit more and got a sense of who supports him and with what sorts of arguments. Previously, not knowing much about him other than that he is of a libertarian streak and backed that up with publicly arguing for ending the war on drugs and being against the war in Iraq I kinda sorta thought he might be someone with something there. And that he might be someone that the Tea Partiers could end up backing, and that that, plus his extant dedicated followers, might make him a force in the primaries, given how weak the field is.
I am now quite sure he is a loon. And that even the Tea Partiers will see that.
Thank you, jrodefeld for reducing my ignorance.
No, economics has moved back quite a bit since then. Do you think things always progress in a forward, progressive direction? Perhaps these economists knew a thing or two about what they were talking about.
Anyway, Keynes General Theory came out in 1936 and that is the model modern “economists” are using to deal with our current economic crisis. Its not like modern economists have evolve much beyond John Maynord Keynes.
Yes, Greenspan was a disciple of Ayn Rand and supported the Gold Standard in the 60s. Then he changed his ways, abandoned all reason and sold his soul to the devil when he became Fed Chairman. It didn’t work out too well. Greenspan has been disgraced.
From this site:
*"During Paul’s 1996 Congressional campaign a Houston Chronicle article raised questions about a 1992 Ron Paul newsletter article. Under Ron Paul’s name was written: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.’ Paul added: “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (Washington, D.C.) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
Texas Monthly later interviewed Paul. He claims:
“They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.”*
Those words appeared under Paul’s name, and it was only years later that any sort of weaselly repudiation materialized.
Regardless, I’ve never heard of the Paul campaign disowning the myriad racists who flocked to his support.
"“Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you’re a white nationalist, then put aside your differences with one another and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man, look at the issues, look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul, 2008.”
(Stormfront Radio, 10/11/07)
David Duke thinks he’s the cat’s pajamas too.
It’s his own web page and his own words in an interview.
They probably shouldn’t. I admit this is not an issue of high concern for me. However we weren’t discussing welfare for immigrants. We were talking about why I think his views on the fictional Superhighway are nuts.
No evidence for any of these propositions has ever appeared. It’s a fever dream. And frankly when dealing with insane ideas I don’t feel obliged to prove a negative.
This is just an appeal to authority. I am sure his knowledge exceeds mine on plenty of subjects, but that doesn’t mean I can’t evaluate whether or not an idea makes sense. And don’t forget he’s not talking about an idea under discussion. He’s saying the fascist elite (WHO?) is trying to make it happen.
I think the sanity of the candidate is a significant electoral issue. And for that matter it doesn’t sound like Paul believes in a conspiracy theory. He appears to believe in a whole passel of them. That’s when I start to consider someone an unreliable judge of reality.
In any case if you think this is my only disagreement with him, you’re mistaken. It’s exhibit A for why I think he’s a bit crazy. I do disagree with him about the gold standard, Medicare, Social Security, abortion, and abolishing the Fed.
Trust me- if you think he’s fiscally sane, you probably won’t feel that way about them. And they won’t be as supportive of a hands-off government.
So you’re of the opinion that if we point out one or two ridiculous things a man has said, that we can dismiss him as a crackpot and disregard his entire body of work and/or value as an individual in his field?
Ron Paul must be dead to you.
I’m not 18, but I’m young enough to be idealistic (25, actually). You all are probably right that Ron Paul won’t get the nomination. I do think he would make it very interesting if he were to run, so I hope he does. You gotta admit the Republican Debates would be a lot more interesting with him there.
The tragedy is that we need to actually pursue some of his policy ideas to show how they would work, yet people are too fearful to try anything new. Why wouldn’t a society without social security work? Do you lack the imagination? Every time we have a government program expansion, we are told we could not possibly survive without it. People just have no imagination.
Does the fact that these programs are bankrupt mean anything to you? Medicare and Social Security are unsustainable.
That’s equal parts non-truth and error of omission.
The fact is that he didn’t just ‘lend his name’ to newsletters, but he started them via the firm of Ron Paul & Associates. He had family on staff and a close associate as the editor. The error of omission is that you have avoided stating that the articles were written in the first person, with no byline, under Ron Paul’s endorsement in his titular newsletter, they went on for years… and he now claims that he neither wrote nor knew about them.
The best case scenario is that he’s incompetent as an administrator, negligent in his responsibilities, and cavalier with what he throws his support behind. In short, that he might be qualified to run a lemonade stand, with adult supervision, but not the United States.
Please cite one such rejection in Paul’s own newsletter, and one in which he outed the actual person responsible in order to name and shame them. Then explain how there were years of such racist comments made in Ron Paul’s own newsletter, but he had no idea that they were going on.
That’s easy.
Let’s cite his first reaction to the racist quotes that he ‘had no idea about’.
[
](http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d)
And so on.
I would change the first part to be that a gold standard is for someone who wants to limit the size and growth of their economy in an effort to (in their own minds) control or stabilize it, and control the actual supply of money. The problems are myriad, including growth and, most importantly, that you are pegging your economy to a commodity that can and has fluctuated in price wildly over time, and who’s value is purely subjective. I think buying gold as more than a hedge is for folks who expect that civilization will collapse and who don’t actually understand that if it does, their gold may or may not actually be worth anything. People who actually think it’s a good idea to peg their economy to gold, however, are simply courting the collapse of their own countries economy, which, in the case of the US, could very well lead to the collapse of civilization as we know it (dogs and cats living together in sin, fire, brimstone and all that other stuff).
Other than that, I find myself strangely in agreement with you. 
-XT
Well, what about the blind adulation for Keynes and the complete neglect of the Austrian School in mainstream economic circles? Doesn’t that bother you a little? John Maynord Keynes is practically worshiped in Washington D.C.
Since you claim to have a decent understanding of the Austrian School, why are they wrong? Why shouldn’t we look to people like Ron Paul for policies to get us out of this economic mess?
Okay, Okay. I went a little overboard there. Sorry about that.
Okay, so you support an asset backed currency, just not gold? Fine, that is my position and Ron Paul’s.
Did you look through any of the links? There is plenty of solid information on “honest” money, recessions and depressions, central banks, and the like.
Like I’ve said before, Keynes General Theory came out in 1936. That is the basis for most of the modern economic thought in Washington DC. Economic thought doesn’t have model years. Solid economic theory of fifty years ago is valid today.
No, he had one donation from someone associated with Stormfront. Thats it. He did repudiate it. You could look through the donations of any candidate and find someone with questionable views. If you are raising the type of money Paul was raising, you expect him to screen every donor? That is ridiculous.
I am sure that was just his newsletter.