Ron Paul the anti-evolutionist

Post Reply New Topic

I still think the war in Iraq is stupid and a senseless waste of money and human life.

The arrangements to begin withdrawal were made under the Bush administration. I remember hearing a story a few weeks back that Obama has started to push withdrawal back a bit. Huge mistake.

The abortion debate is the same among libertarians as it is among the rest of the world. If a libertarian regards the fetus as a living being, then libertarian principles dictate that it has an absolute right to life that the woman cannot infringe (they frame abortion in the context of initiating aggression against the fetus).

Why in the world would I support Obama?

Last go round, the support was mostly split between Paul and Gravel but as more and more comes to light and more and more issues come up, he seems absolutely not qualified to handle these matters and take the action needed to ensure everything is done properly.

I have no clue who I'll support in the next one...depends on who runs and their history and what they've done lately in response to all this mess. It'll most likely end up that I just vote third party because both of the ruling party candidates are corrupt despicable sons of b*****s just like they have been for the past however long now because most people are too apathetic to invest any time into just who their leaders are.

A bit? Try a few years. We're staying over there permanently. That's the point of Fortress America (the American Embassy in Baghdad).

Honestly, I am should not be too surprised about Dr. Paul's opinion on the matter.

As for voting for Nader or Kucinich, I am not very tempted to vote for either, not to say that Paul is ideal.

Paul has his problems, such as a desire to decrease Federal Reserve independence, an unwillingness to compromise to neoliberal trade reforms, an overly harsh stance on illegal immigration, and of course this, but, I still think he is a much better option than the other guys.

Nader and Kucinich are on the far economic left(at least compared to other legislators), and while they might have good traits such as a desire to end the drug war, more reasonable stances on abortion and illegal immigration, they are just as crazy as Paul and just happen to be on the left. I mean, Kucinich has openly argued that we should end fractional reserve banking and make the Federal Reserve part of the treasury department. Both Kucinich and Nader have opposed free trade stridently. And I have little doubt that Nader and Kucinich will push for a much larger government than Paul would, and that many of the regulations and spending efforts would be wasteful.

Once again, I am not saying that Paul is ideal, but, I'd likely take Paul sooner than Nader or Kucinich. (And frankly, voting for any of the 3 is more of a protest vote than anything else)

I think I'd rather this since it would allow a much more open monetary policy and international lending policy and it'd take control of the money out of the hands of the few international bankers who right now control and influence it all. There is no legal effective way to audit the fed right now because of it's status as semi-private.

Not to mention it'd be funny to see how the media shift toward a legitimate concern about monetary policy while still espousing to varying degrees and effects the pro-corporatist standpoint (either through direct means or through subterfuge).

What do you mean by "open"? You mean public?

The issue is that based upon our current research, political independence reduces inflation, but there are no benefits to having the organization under public control. (what was done is a statistical survey of different nations with different structures to show this) Having political factors is just going to make monetary policy a *lot* more political, and this will result in politicians trying to create more money to get us jobs now, or trying to inflate us out of a deficit or all sorts of other choices, all of which are bad.

(by international lending, you're just referring to foreign currencies that we and other national banks keep, correct? The fed isn't in charge of foreign aid, and most of what I think of as lending falls under that category.)

Yes, I meant public.

Political factors already play a part in monetary policy. I'd rather it be public because I'd trust a politician over an investment banker any day of the week.

It's not really fair to compare Ron Paul with Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich imo. Neither of those two were ever serious candidates while Paul wins straw polls, can raise money, and has the organization to do something in the primaries. Realistically Ron Paul winning in 2012 is slim but he can lay the groundwork for his son or someone else like himself. It'll be a joke if Romney wins the nomination after the establishment republicans fake opposition to that health care bill for the last year.

If Ron doesn't run I'll probably look at Gary Johnson or a third party candidate.

Political factors play a role in many things already, but that does not mean that political factors are good things that we should give more power to

First off, major decisions are often made by the economists working for the fed, such as Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, or whoever have you.

Secondly, I already pointed out that the evidence seems to favor independence. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/01/ ... ndent.html This does not mean that independence is actually correct, as there are always flaws and questions and so on.

Thirdly, I don't see the value in trusting a biased and incompetent politician over a merely biased investment banker. An investment banker seems clearly a lesser evil, unless you hold to some conspiracy theory, and even if you do hold to some conspiracy theory, I have great doubts that making something like this political will really help the issue much either.

I would vote for him. Not because he's an anti-evolutionist but because he believes in freedom.

I live in the UK so I won't get that chance.

So my hopes are based on Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farage.

Basic psychology. Politicians crave attention and power. The banker types who work for the fed only crave money and are smart enough to be able to obfuscate their tracks for decades.

You haven't really given much of an answer.

Politicians crave attention and power, thus they're likely to screw up the economy to get that attention and power, because if they do something that is bad in the long-run, they can just blame the next politician.

Bankers are interested in money and are smart, and the Fed is being monitored, so they'll push for good policies knowing their best interest, and knowing that they aren't smarter than the people watching them.

I mean, maybe bankers know something economists don't, but there is enough intermingling between the two groups that I doubt that any issue of secret information or anything like that is rational to claim to exist in this situation.

Believes in freedom? He is anti-abortion. By his reckoning a woman is not free to get rid of an unwanted fetus.

ruveyn

Not that I'm particularly hot on politicians but the bankers have totally screwed the country and are still trying to screw it further. Better the Mafia.