Ron Paul & DOOMSDAY...

Post Reply New Topic

The world price of gold is denominated in US Dollars. Dollars give gold value. Despite your leader's hair-brained ideas about the lepreconomy, a pot-o-gold will not make things better.... and sure as hell won't make things stable.

Do you really want the commodities market to dictate your worth on a daily basis?

PS

There's nothing to stop you from investing your savings in gold. That doesn't change the fact that we don't need money backed by it.

Ron Paul wants to crucify the middle class on a cross of gold.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeTkT5-w5RA[/youtube]

Commodity money only favors wealthy.


Here's a news flash, the average American household has about $6000.00 in credit card debt not to mention an upside-down mortgage. A bit of inflation would be a boon for the average American family.

Compared to who? I'd venture to guess that people take the time to read LvMI stuff know more than people looking for free Obama money or the Occupy folks. I don't think I even need to mention the illiteracy of his GOP counterparts because we know how bad they are.

And who cares who truthers or conspiracy nuts support? Honestly, out of the candidates to call a conspiracy theorist Ron isn't one of him. He's pretty much the only candidate to not jump into the Birther nonsense that. I imagine the reason they support Ron is the same reason anybody supports him, he's an honest man that isn't owned by anyone and wants to end the wars/protect our civil liberties. People probably respect him because he's one of the few people to actually tell Americans we weren't attacked because they hate our freedom.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing."

"The trouble with our [LvMI] friends isn't that they are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Perhaps they know a little more than others, but they do not know what they know- they grossly overestimate their competency and believe that they really understand the economy, when the reality is much more complicated.

And I would actually put a fair number of the Occupy folk against Paul's gold-bug backers for an understanding of what's wrong with the economy. I can't give a blanket endorsement to any random person who shows up at a protest, of course, but the thrust of the movement has the right idea, at least moreso than the Paulite "shut down the government and everything will turn out right" belief.


The type of supporters a politician attracts have to be indicative of something. The fact is that Paul seems to be very conspiracy-friendly.

I share the bafflement that engaging in Birther nonsense isn't seen as a disqualifying idiocy, but such is the state of the Republican Party.

Exactly. I've had arguments with my bro about the same thing. He'll rant for hours about how inflation is terrible for "savers", then go ballistic when I point out to him that his total "savings" wouldn't be enough to pay off his outstanding credit card debt, let alone his student loans and $320k mortgage on a house whose current market value is somewhere around $180k. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Well, of course you side with them since they come to the same conclusion. That's your right but that's a matter of opinion that I disagree with.

You certainly wouldn't say Paul supporters only have a superficial knowledge of foreign policy and civil liberties would you?

I'm not sure what you are implying it is indicative of. I hope you're not thinking that Ron is some sort of "secret conspiracy theorist". A lot of people seem to be falling by the guilt by association nonsense and it's just so wrong. What I think their support comes down to the fact that Ron is an honest man who actually is willing to stick his neck and say what nobody else has the guts to say about our foreign policy. People trust him to be his own man. In the case of the racists people allege support Ron, how isn't it a good thing? Ron is actually getting these haters to support peace and understanding, that's a pretty amazing thing in my opinion.

As a medical doctor Ron Paul may not have deprived anyone of life saving medical care however as a politician he would not hesitate to let uninsured patients die.

You also side with those who come to the same conclusions as you. How is that any different? For that matter, how is it supposed to be wrong? What, I'm not supposed to agree with the people I agree with?

Yes, I would say they have a superficial understanding of foreign policy and civil liberties. A lot of Paulites take silly absolutist stances on civil liberties, and such absolutism was pretty handily refuted by Milton Friedman, himself a libertarian. In a lot of cases, there is a legitimate societal interest in controlling an individual's behavior, and government is the means through which society at large expresses its interest. I will be right there with you in condemning civil liberties transgressions under W and Obama and calling for stronger protections, but Ayn Rand's philosophy is shallow garbage. And on foreign policy, we are a part of the rest of the world and what happens abroad affects us here at home, not to mention our general desire to promote the spread of freedom to oppressed peoples. Again, I might agree that our foreign policy has often been heavy-handed and ill-conceived, but withdrawing from the world is going too far in the other direction.

You can complain about "guilt by association" but a man is known by the company he keeps. Why are conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones flocking to Paul? Why do prominent racists come out to back him? They see something in him they like, or they think they are advancing their agenda by supporting him. It's not clear (to me at least) what, if anything, this actually says about Paul himself, but it should at least flash a warning sign when you see bigots and lunatics supporting something. As to getting them to support "peace"... that has often enough in the past been an excuse and a cover for other motives. I come from Copperhead territory; people in my region during the Civil War often advocated "peace" with the South as a more palatable way of backing slavery. In the 1930s many Nazi sympathizers came out in support of "peace" and "non-intervention" in European affairs because that was more socially acceptable than outright anti-Semitism.

Ron Paul has never impressed me as much as Michelle Bachman has; which is to say, not bloody much at all!

The fundamental problem with health insurance is the fact that it's ephemeral.

Your house can get destroyed by a hurricane on September 17. As long as your policy was in effect on the day it happened, your house doesn't have to be rebuilt before December 31. You don't even have to have coverage after September 18. All that matters is that you had coverage the day the house got destroyed.

Compare that to health insurance. You can be diagnosed with ADD on September 17th, with a health insurance policy in full effect, and 5 years later be completely up $hit's creek because you got laid off from your job, COBRA ran out, you're now a contractor, and no individual policy will cover it because it's a "pre-existing" condition. And if coverage weren't excluded, your policy would be priced based on your current medical history, not based on your medical history as of the day you purchased it to begin with. Most people don't realize that HIPAA portability ONLY applies if you get hired as a real employee by another large company with large group policy. If you're forced to switch to an individual policy, it doesn't matter whether you've continuously maintained coverage or not. Likewise, COBRA only applies if the company that you were previously employed by still exists and has health insurance. I got screwed for the first time back in 2001, when the (dotcom) company I worked for went under, and COBRA wasn't available because the company itself no longer existed.

Put another way, under current laws, you can do your part, pay your premiums, and still get royally f**ked health insurance-wise through no fault of your own. And if you had a personal policy all along, you can still get screwed if you move to another state (at which point your old policy would be terminated, and you'd have to qualify for a new policy priced according to your current health record), or your health insurance company itself goes under, leaves your state, or even decides to just quit offering the policy you previously had & terminates everyone who was covered by it.

Of course not. I was simply saying I disagree those opinions and conclusions, not that you were wrong for having them or siding with those you share beliefs with.

I'm not sure what you mean by silly absolutist stances on civil liberties, maybe you can give some examples because I'm not sure what you mean. What legitimate interest does the government have in controlling individual behavior?

Perhaps I overestimated you on foreign policy. I did know you were partial to more of an internationalist stance and that you were at least somewhat of a fan of Jon Huntsman. Yes, what happens overseas affects us back home but what we do overseas also has an effect back home. The desire to promote freedom to those oppressed is great and the best way to do it is by example not by force and buying friends. Withdrawing our troops and isn't withdrawing from the world.

I haven't actually read much Ayn Rand believe it or not but I am somewhat familiar with her views and interestingly enough, her views on foreign policy are where most libertarians depart from her thinking. She believed we had every right even the duty to invade so called "slave pen" countries in order to liberate them.

What other motives are you suggesting these people have? Are you they're against the wars and our interventionist foreign policy because they secretly hold allegiance to Islamic terrorists who only attack us because of our wars and intervention in to their home countries? I'm not buying it. As I said, I think it comes down the fact that they trust that Ron is his own man and admire his principles. Perhaps they believe they're oppressed minorities and simply want to be left alone? Implying there is some secret reason these people support Ron Paul is as ridiculous as saying the Obama is a secret Muslim, Ron has been around for a long time and his views are well established.

The hard-libertarian (sometimes bleeding over into anarcho-capitalist) stances are pretty extreme; ie taxes of any form are evil and immoral, any regulation is wrong, no one has any right to put any limitations on you, etc. The example Friedman gave was in relation to the distinction between firing a high-powered laser at your neighbour's house and having a lamp on that was visible from their house. Obviously those are two extremes of sending photons toward your neighbour, and the point somewhere in between at which it becomes unacceptable is an ambiguous line to draw. The idea that individuals have an absolute right never to be interfered with, and the comically oversimplified "non-aggression principle" doesn't hold up in the real world. Zoning laws are a clear example of where society has an interest in telling an individual what they can and cannot do. Environmental regulations are another- if you would like to run a factory that produces toxic waste but I live downstream and want to drink the water, there is a conflict between our interests which does not have a sane resolution under absolutist libertarian views, which would allow you to build the factory and to hell with anyone affected as an indirect result.


I would not necessarily withdraw all our troops from everywhere, and certainly not instantly (there has to be at least some modicum of allowing a transition in Afghanistan, though I want out as soon as possible). I am in favor of international arrangements like the Kyoto Accords, the WHO, and other efforts at dealing with common problems that face all nations. We have to be an active part in the international community and be willing to defend our allies if they are in danger (I'm thinking South Korea here). However, I don't think we should be the entire muscle behind NATO, or that by our commitment to defend others we should subsidize the rest of the world's defense obligations. We need major defense cuts; we can't afford to defend everyone from everyone. In promoting freedom, sometimes we need an intervention more direct than being the city on a hill. We helped topple Gaddaffi; we should back freedom fighters elsewhere as well, but not to the point of mounting an occupation and organizing a new government for them.


The intersection between Paul fans and Rand fans is very, very large. And that is not just guilt by association either; Paul named his son for the sociopathic author.


No, I never said any of that. OK, so they support him because they admire his principles- but what principles does a racist or a conspiracy monger admire? Not necessarily good ones.

A lot of the Ron Paul backers I've run across (and, yes, I know this is very anecdotal and to be of limited use, but it still seems a bit telling given the diversity of Paulists I've met) seem to be people who had little knowledge or interest in politics and really lacked any understanding of the structural problems with US politics. Suddenly, they saw some disappointing trends (a militaristic foreign policy continued under Democrats, a bad recession where the big banks for bailed out) and realized "there's a pretty deep problem here, garden variety politicians aren't the solution". Then, they read some Ron Paul and thought "he ain't no garden variety pol!" and thought "hey, he has a point on the wars, yeah - the Fed really has helped out the bankers, I wonder if all that other stuff he speaks of [hyperinflation, evil bureaucrats, the evils of the UN] are right - of course they are!"

Ron Paulists seem to have a zealous certitude quite typical of people who just become politically engaged, I have to admit that I went through a similar phase as in my early adolescence.

Not to mention the people he charges with ghostwriting his investment newsletters.

Wow! Gold stock looks just those formerly rising house prices!

Well if that is the case, then I don't know anybody that I could really describe as an complete "absolutist" when it comes to civil liberties, certainly not Ron Paul. Obviously you do not have the right infringe to infringe upon the liberties of other people like some of the examples you given.

I think where you go wrong is with the whole idea of allies and enemies. We should be as close to neutral as possible. Thomas Jefferson had it right when he said 'peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none'. This idea of allies and enemies has cause the deaths of so many people that had no legitimate interest in the conflict. If people on their own accord want to go volunteer their lives to foreign countries, they're perfectly entitle to go do so. If this country is going to go to war it shouldn't be aggressive in nature, they declare it, win it, and come home.

You have to realize too, that our intervention overseas always has unintended consequences. Your example of Libya is an interesting considering the amount of character the "rebels" have shown in their war and brutal murder of their former leader. This is precisely the type of conflict that we need to stay out of. Remember the 'freedom fighters' we supported in Afghanistan in the 80s? How about those 'freedom fighters' we supported in Nicaragua?

'Peace, commerce, and honest friendship' is really all we need to promote our values. One of our first responses any country that poses a threat or dares to disobey us is to isolate them economically when I believe that commerce between nations discourages conflict. Do you think Cuba would still be ruled by the Castro brothers if we never put that embargo on them?


Anyways....

You are completely wrong on this part. Rand wasn't named after Ayn Rand. His name is Randal, went by Randy as child, didn't start going by Rand until he met his wife.

What principles do you think they are admiring? I really want to know what you think that these racists and conspiracy nuts are seeing that nobody else is. What ulterior motive do you think they have in supporting peace and freedom?