# The Media Treatment of Rand Paul - Knee Jerk Reactionism by Mental Midgets **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2010, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445 "2010-05-23T08:12:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/261 "2010-05-25T17:56:32Z")
> [@Hentor](#): > > Dayum, Kimstu. You must have read like, a really big economics book, with like, a really big highlighter and everything! Well, I can’t claim to be a “great intellectual figure” who “personally studied under the great Austrian economists” and “frequently embarrasses the Fed chairman with his probing questions” like Ron Paul, but I do try to stay reasonably informed. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/262 "2010-05-25T20:20:29Z")
> [@erez](#): > > My whole point was that **Fear Itself** cited health insurance as an example of how the free market fails. I took issue with this, since there is very little “free” involved in this heavily regulated industry and there are hundreds of examples of much freer industries where the free market does work for the benefit of everybody. Health insurance in America is more or less based on free market principles. the federal government up until the health care bill was PROHIBITED from regulating insurance in any way. It was all done at the state level by the state insurance commissioners. BTW when you talk about insurance regulation, most of the regulation has to do with making sure that the money is there when it comes time for the insurance companies to pay up. > [@](#): > > No. It is not the reason insurance exists based on the very definition of “insurance.” For example, one of the most important tools that insurers have is risk appraising. If insurers are prevented from “cherry-picking the lowest-risk customers” by law, then you cannot claim that your high rate is due to the free market (and I cited many other examples of distortions). It appears that you want to redefine the whole purpose of “insurance” because you claim to be a concerned citizen. This is fine and obviously lawmakers who created all the laws affecting health insurers shared your concerns and you successfully created the system that we have today. Congrats. You either have an incomplete or erroneous definition of insurance. Insurance requires only risk shifting and risk distribution. Insurance is basically a communal rainy day fund. When you buy fire insurance, you have shifted the risk of that fire to the communal fund and the fund collects premiums from large enough pool of homeowners that the insurance companies can reasonably predict how much they will have to pay out year to year. Sometimes insurance is a communal savings mechanism (life insurance falls into this category). In the realm of health insurance, insurance companies quickly realized that if they eliminated the 1% most costly insureds, they could eliminate a very large portion of their claims. They try to do this in teh front end with underwriting (cherrypicking as some people call it) which leaves us with a population of uninsurable folks and in teh back end with claim adjustment (and trying to knock out legitimate claims and get rid of expensive insureds) which leaves us with another population of uninsurable folks. However, it does add up to my statement that simplistic government solutions can create unintended consequences, which many well-intentioned statists completely fail to grasp. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/263 "2010-05-25T20:21:42Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Okay, liberal demonize business and capitalism because it is all about seeking maximum profit, right? Why on earth would any of these companies who apparently care so much about profits purposely limit its paying customers? What sense would that make? Plus, there would be a massive backlash. > > You suggest you are living in the real world? Nonsense. In the real world non of these companies would dare purposefully limit their customer base. It would be suicide. Here’s your problem; you are assuming that these business owners are rational. It’s really not as automatic an assumption as you might think. Businesses aren’t always all about making maximum profit; sometimes owners are motivatedby personal or emotional interests. Honestly, I think you’re doing what you’re accusing others of doing - accepting commonly accepted definitions of political beliefs and applying them rather than actually looking into it. A racist owner of a business might well decide that he or she preferred to sell only to whites, even if that meant less profit for them. In the real world, people aren’t all supremely rational, reasonable, knowledgable humans beings. And even when they _are_ about maximum profit, there’s plenty of reasons to minimize customer base in order to make maximum profit - for example, if you were intending to sell a range of high quality cars, you might purposefully limit the number you make to sell in order to give off an impression of exclusivity. Selling a million cars for $100,000 might actually make you less money than selling 20 cars for the same price. Too, generalisation means you cannot target as specifically, by nature. If I sell a line of one-size-fits-all plain white tshirts, I will likely enough sell less than I would sell, say, a single size of a shirt with a band logo, or with Che Guevara on the front, even though those shirts have a smaller potential market. And then you have those situations were a generalised product does not have the same interest at all as a specific one - Coca Cola, for example, could simply sell water, increasing their customer base by allowing those allergic to or have some adverse reaction to their current Coke formula to buy from them - but i’d guess they’d do rather less business. That you’re apparently incapable of understanding any sensical situation in which a business might well limit its customer base seems very surprising. It happens all the time, it makes plenty of sense, and it works pretty well. In the real world, companies limit their customer base all the time - it would be very, very hard to find a company which doesn’t purposefully limit their market in some way. You really think that’s nonsense? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/264 "2010-05-25T21:28:50Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Dayum, **Kimstu**. You must have read like, a really big economics book, with like, a really big highlighter and everything! I think he may have watched several hours worth of YouTube videos. It’s just like college! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/265 "2010-05-25T22:16:59Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > - Coca Cola, for example, could simply sell water, . . . . [Coca - Cola Admits That Dasani is Nothing But Tap Water](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0304-04.htm)😛 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/266 "2010-05-25T22:32:14Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Okay, liberal demonize business and capitalism because it is all about seeking maximum profit, right? Why on earth would any of these companies who apparently care so much about profits purposely limit its paying customers? What sense would that make? Plus, there would be a massive backlash. > > You suggest you are living in the real world? Nonsense. In the real world non of these companies would dare purposefully limit their customer base. It would be suicide. OK. First, let’s drop the posturing that “liberals” demonize capitalism and profits. There are a number of people on the economic or political left who do demonize capitalism, but this is pretty much an American audience where the left is a couple of steps to the right of center and you will find very few attacks on capitalism, _per se_. Even the late Senator Howard Metzenbaum, notoriously the most liberal member of the Senate, for years, was a healthy respecter of capitalism–it was how he made his millions. So let’s drop that straw man argument. Then, you are arguing against facts, based on personal belief, and it will not go well. Your response that some number of capitalist industries would never engage in discriminatory behavior was posted in response to actual incidents in which they clearly did behave in a discriminatory manner. Arguing that little Johnny would never hit little Billy because that is not in Johnny’s nature as a response to finding Johnny in the act of smashing Billy with his shovel is a failed exercise. Clearly, some of your premises are wrong and it really does not matter, from the perspective of your opponents, which premise(s) contain(s) errors because they can see that your conclusion is absurd regardless which premise(s) failed. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/267 "2010-05-25T22:38:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > [Coca - Cola Admits That Dasani is Nothing But Tap Water](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0304-04.htm)😛 It slipped my mind that they’d actually done that at one point. It was even found to be potentially carcinogenic at one point, if I remember right. Really, I think it serves to prove the point; Dasani really isn’t as successful as standard Coke, even in countries where it didn’t have a vast marketing disaster. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/268 "2010-05-25T23:53:49Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > The OP’s argument boils down to something bad happened under our current system, so if we try this totally different system everything will be better, and no it’s never been done before, but trust me it’ll be great. It HAS been done before. Our country was on a gold standard all the way until 1971. After that Nixon closed the Gold Window and, also with the movement towards globalization, we created a worldwide fiat currency with no restraint on the printing presses. This has never happened before in world history. There were many at that time that knew things would end badly. The goal is replacing the current reckless monetary system with a commodity backed currency with restraint on the bankers. Reestablish free markets and capitalism (along with bankruptcies, antitrust laws and no subsidies) based on savings and production. Far from being “untried”, it is the system that made the United States the superpower we once were. Now China is our banker and we are on the decline. Even if you don’t trust what I am saying, surely you can see that we need to replace the current financial system with something more viable. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/269 "2010-05-25T23:59:30Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > It HAS been done before. Our country was on a gold standard all the way until 1971. After that Nixon closed the Gold Window and, also with the movement towards globalization, we created a worldwide fiat currency with no restraint on the printing presses. This has never happened before in world history. There were many at that time that knew things would end badly. > > The goal is replacing the current reckless monetary system with a commodity backed currency with restraint on the bankers. Reestablish free markets and capitalism (along with bankruptcies, antitrust laws and no subsidies) based on savings and production. > > Far from being “untried”, it is the system that made the United States the superpower we once were. Now China is our banker and we are on the decline. > > **Even if you don’t trust what I am saying, surely you can see that we need to replace the current financial system with something more viable**. Six pages of posts, a few hours of youtube videos, several tens of thousands of words of cites and you finally present an appropriate debate topic. If this was what you wanted to discuss, why the fuck didn’t you say so in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/270 "2010-05-26T00:08:10Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > The LaRouchies, supporters of the aging Lyndon LaRouche have been doing this a lot better a lot longer. Hayak got a Nobel Prize for writing a comic book of economics denouncing inflation. Krugman more recently got a Nobel Prize. He denounces Libertarianism. Here are some of his blog pieces. We all know that Libtards won’t bother to agree with them. > > [http://blog.santafe.edu/?p=150](http://blog.santafe.edu/?p=150) > > [Why Libertarianism Doesn't Work, Part N+1 - The New York Times](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/why-libertarianism-doesnt-work-part-n1/) > > [http://blog.santafe.edu/?p=150](http://blog.santafe.edu/?p=150) > > [Leverage, for real - The New York Times](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/leverage-for-real/) > > [http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/opinion/02krugman.html?\_r=1](http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=1) > > The Austrian school is full of apologists for raping the environment, encouraging the idea of litigation (but not real litigation) and allowing racism to run rampant because the magic hand of the market will correct all that trivial stuff. Well bullshit. The invisible hand has been functioning since the dawn of civilization (supposedly) and racism isn’t gone and isn’t going away. It is correctly legislated against. Tell me, how much Austrian literature have you read? Keynesian economists like Krugman are merely establishment shills and it is an embarrassment that he was awarded the Nobel Prize. You know who else was awarded the Nobel Prize? Al Gore and Barack Obama. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it very wrong. Krugman’s problem is that he is so caught up in mathmatical equations and theoretical models, he can’t see the bigger picture. I’ve followed what Krugman has said diligently since the crash. All he can think of is more stimulus, more printing of dollars and more inflation. He thinks nothing of the deficit, nothing of the adverse consequences of inflation for the more vulnerable and nothing of the patent immorality of bailing out the very institutions that got us in this mess. Peter Schiff, critiques Paul Krugman here: > [@](#): > > In his latest weekly New York Times column, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman put forward arguments that were so nonsensical that the award committee should ask for its medal back. > > Recent rhetoric from Washington has put the economic relationship between the U.S. and China squarely on the front burner, and Krugman is demanding that we crank up the flame. This week 130 members of Congress sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner demanding that the Obama administration designate China as a “currency manipulator”. Following that, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill that looks to force the Obama administration’s hand. For its own part, Beijing invites criticism by continuing to deny its utterly obvious currency agenda. > > As these tensions escalate, most economists urge Washington to tread lightly because of the negative fallout for America if China were to begin selling its enormous cache of U.S. Treasury bonds. Krugman pushes back, asserting that the U.S. risks little by playing hardball, and that China has more to lose. He asserts that a Chinese decision to end its purchases of U.S. Treasury debt would make only a marginal impact on long-term interest rates. Did you hear that Stockholm? > > According to Krugman, our secret weapon of economic invincibility is the Fed’s ability to print dollars endlessly. If China were to foolishly decide to attack us by selling our debt, the Fed could simply step in and buy the excess with newly printed greenbacks. (In other words, Krugman sees no difference between funding the debt and monetizing it. See my latest video blog on the subject.). For Krugman, China would gain little from such an attack, but would lose the ability to export to its best customer and suffer severe losses in the value of its dollar holdings. Krugman’s worldview is reassuring – but it has absolutely nothing to do with reality. > > . . . > **[Campaign for Liberty - Reclaim the Republic. Restore the Constitution.](https://campaignforliberty.org)** > > Reclaim the Republic. Restore the Constitution. Krugman is not living in reality. If you support him, tell me, what does he say about the possibility of hyperinflation or a dollar crisis and the possibility of the United States becoming like Greece in short order? ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/271 "2010-05-26T00:10:36Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > If this was what you wanted to discuss, why the fuck didn’t you say so in the first place? Obviously he needs to clear the air and get it all off his chest before honest and actual debate can occur: > [@jrodefeld](#): > > I posted my lengthy “essay” here for two reasons. The first is just to get that off my chest. We’re the unwilling beneficiaries of all that pent up frustration. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/272 "2010-05-26T00:15:06Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > [Wrong.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_%28political_term%29) > > Of course, if you want to argue that their authority DOES have legal force, you can certainly legitimately attempt to. But the way you’re expressing this makes you look like you’re arguing that their _very existence_ is unconstitutional. There is significant disagreement on that. > > (I won’t even get into Bush or past Presidents doing this, because as a self-proclaimed libertarian, you probably aren’t interested.) “Constitutional experts” decided it, huh? Well, I’ll just leave it that there is significant disagreement among said experts on this topic. The weird thing is that this was the least egregious unconstitutional act among all that I listed, but you ignored the rest. Even if one takes the most broad interpretation of the constitution, there are blatant infringements of that document in Obama’s first 18 months in office. I know Bush and past presidents did unconstitutional things as well. But none of them, as far as I know, claimed to be an expert in Constitutional Law. If Obama is as smart as many claim, he would know better. ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/273 "2010-05-26T00:16:52Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > You know who else was awarded the Nobel Prize? Al Gore and Barack Obama. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it very wrong. You know who was the one who brought up the Nobel Prize as an award indicative of one’s authority on a given subject? [**You**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12488302#post12488302). > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Krugman’s problem is that he is so caught up in mathmatical equations and theoretical models, he can’t see the bigger picture. Too caught up in theory and can’t see the bigger picture? Now what political party does that remind me of… ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/274 "2010-05-26T00:24:03Z")
> [@Dante\_Fevah](#): > > This above quote, is where you lost me. > > You did not lose me with what could honestly be construed as a condescending attitude on your part, full of assumptions on what others may or may not have read, or on what others do or do not understand about, “the virtues of a society based on liberty” Not knowing you, I give you\* the benefit of the doubt \*here. It is only fair, but fairness also dictates that I mention to you, what struck me about your attitude and your basic assumptions, as being condescending. > > If I am to believe the media feels threatened, which I do not, I would have to buy into several paranoid and unrealistic fantasies about what constitutes _‘the media.’_ I do not. > > You obviously put a lot of time, thought, and effort into his. And for that you deserve some credit and respect. I think it is fair to be somewhat put off by the tone of my essay. It wasn’t so much directed at any of you, but out of frustration on many of the comments I have seen in the media and on message boards (including this one) that were given without any thought. So, no offense intended. As to the media reaction, they did not give Rand Paul any benefit of the doubt whatsoever. Variance of opinion is not allowed in our public discourse. Ideally we would have a media which would inform and educate. There are lots of sensible positions that Rand Paul and certain members of the Tea Party hold, but many people will come away with the assumption that they are all racists because that is the media generated storyline. I think it is sad. The only hope is that this old media dies out and we embrace fully the internet as a means to get information. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/275 "2010-05-26T00:29:33Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > How dare those media meanies actually let Doctor Rand Paul speak. And then repeat what he says. It’s not fair! > > The OP often presents material from the Senior Doctor Paul. But there’s never a link. (I’m not counting the insufferable YouTube stuff.) When I asked about those paragraphs of bolded text, he said he’d _paraphrased_ the Senior Doctor’s words. Is there a good online source for his actual stuff? > > Well, his [Congressional District](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_14th_congressional_district) is not far from me; I’ve been aware of his antics for years. I doubt our OP is earning him any new friends. I doubt many on here are willing to change their political beliefs based on anything I wrote, so that is a non issue. There is plenty of links to Ron Paul’s writings online. I’ll help you out: > **[Ron Paul, MD, Author at LewRockwell](https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/ron-paul/)** [http://www.house.gov/paul/](http://www.house.gov/paul/) > **[Mises Institute](https://mises.org)** > > With the help of our extraordinary supporters, the Mises Institute is the world's leading supporter of the ideas of liberty and the Austrian School of > **[Ron Paul Library – Your Trusted Resource for Singapore Real Estate](https://ronpaullibrary.org/)** That should get you started. If you want to take issue with anything he said in any of his speeches or writings, let me know. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/276 "2010-05-26T00:31:17Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > The only hope is that this old media dies out and we embrace fully the internet as a means to get information. Be careful what you wish for. It might become widely known how [close Ron Paul is to the John Birch Society](http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/409): > [@](#): > > Dr. Ron Paul, Texas congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate, was the featured speaker Saturday evening, October 4 on the final day of the John Birch Society’s 50th Anniversary Celebration. > > … > > Dr. Paul made evident his affection for the JBS by stating at the outset, “I am delighted to help celebrate this birthday.” And when he moved on to talk about his first successful campaign for Congress in 1976, he said, “I’m sure there are people in this room who probably helped me in that campaign, because I know that so many of you have over the years.” He then described his first press conference at the Capitol Hill Club, during which an antagonist from Houston asked him, “Mr. Paul, are you a member of the John Birch Society? Have you ever been a member of the John Birch Society?” > > Dr. Paul recalled his response: “No, I am not a member of the John Birch Society but many members of the John Birch Society are friends of mine and they have been very helpful in my campaign.” You idol is a right wing crackpot. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/277 "2010-05-26T00:42:09Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I have snipped the rest because it is highly tendentious, factually wrong, or occasionally so misguided that it is not even wrong. > > Hayek wrote a very good book. In 1949. The state of the world and of the economic discipline has changed enormously since then. Perhaps you’d like to read about it. > > [Why I Am Not An Austrian Economist](http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm) > > The failure of [Austrian Business Cycle Theory](http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/05/03/austrian-business-cycle-theory/) > > A smorgasbord of [critiques](http://web.archive.org/web/20070607080242/http://www.againstpolitics.com/austrian_economics/index.html) from real heavyweights of past and present. Sure, there are differing viewpoints. And there are valid critiques of Austrian Economics no doubt. If you are claiming what I said is “tendentious, factually wrong, or occasionally so misguided that it is not even wrong” (whatever that means) then you should elaborate. I have no idea what you are talking about. The issue for me is not to get bogged down in the minutiae of comparing macroeconomic theories and axioms ad nauseam, but to express what I consider the most important aspects of the federal budget and central banking: 1. I want a balanced budget and a low, preferably nonexistent public debt. 2. I want low inflation, or no inflation. 3. I want to limit government from expanding without the peoples consent. 4. I don’t accept the notion of a secret central bank able to create money out of thin air with no oversight. Nobody should have that kind of power. If I, or anybody else desires these things, we must reject Keynesian economics and central banking outright. We must believe in a commodity standard for our currency. These are things that Austrian economics would provide. What is wrong with any of those points? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/278 "2010-05-26T00:45:08Z")
> [@Dan\_Norder](#): > > This is what confuses me about Libertarians: they pretend to be intellectually superior while making claims that are nothing more than juvenile fantasies of how the world should work without a basic reality check. That whole rant sounds like someone with a raging case of blind hero worship and not anything like a reasoned or realistic assessment. > > Pot meet kettle… > > Rand Paul _wishes_ he were on par with Sarah Palin in intellect. Even good ol’ goin’ rogue Palin wouldn’t say the kinds of aggressively stupid things Rand on Ron Paul regularly come up with. What you have just demonstrated is a complete lack of comprehension or ability to form a cogent argument. If you want to think that Rand and Ron Paul are intellectually inferior to Sarah Palin :smack: you had better back that up. Find anything that Ron Paul has said that makes him inferior to Sarah Palin in any way. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/279 "2010-05-26T00:48:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You can actually get more thought-provoking analysis of Paul from non-mainstream media, such as [_The Nation._](http://www.thenation.com/blog/what-happens-when-serious-libertarian-gets-serious-attention) That was a very fair assessment. Thanks for the link. Pay attention media, that is how you report on a candidate fairly. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/280 "2010-05-26T00:51:48Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Be careful what you wish for. It might become widely known how [close Ron Paul is to the John Birch Society](http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/409):You idol is a right wing crackpot. That still exists?! Barry Goldwater also enjoyed the Birchers’ support – might not have won the GOP’s nomination in 1964 without them – but even he thought they were cranks. See [_Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus,_](http://www.amazon.com/Before-Storm-Goldwater-Unmaking-Consensus/dp/1568584121/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274835204&sr=1-1) by Rick Perlstein. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445.md?page=15)