I don't think the list was to prove Ron Paul was racist, rather to bring his racial politics into question. My personal favorite is number 8. If you don't support or believe in the free market, and think that welfare is a good thing then you are not sensible.
So those that don't support a "free market" economy that has never worked historically (yes free market capitalism has always been an abject failure see: Iceland, Argentina, Chile), or rather has only worked for the privileged few are nonsensical? It is interesting how living in the era of America culture that features a multimedia propaganda machine that leads generally normal individuals to say things like "socialism has never worked" and "free markets are for the best" with no historical evidence to back that up. These people believe in this so much that when others bring up the fact that 9 of the 11 best Nation-States to live in are heavily socialist, and the aforementioned failures of Randian, Chicago-boy pet projects they choose to ignore it. I'm telling you going to an even more "free market" than we already have is about the dumbest thing we could do - go check out Argentina, Chile, or Iceland and you will see what we'd be looking at. So, with just that information, I find Paul to be a horrible candidate. The racial segregation project that is neoliberal capitalism can wait.
ANOTHER line on foreign aid that I keep seeing on the internets lately is Ron Paul's quip: "Foreign aid is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries." The second half of this quip identifies a real problem: too much foreign aid money gets cornered by local elites in recipient countries. Some of this is illegitimate cronyism or graft. Some is legitimate: foreign aid programmes have to be administered by well-educated locals, who generally come from well-off backgrounds and command relatively high salaries, all the higher as the foreign-aid programmes increase demand for their services. That's a tough nut to crack. Anyway, this is a real problem that merits attention.
I think the author of this focused on the wrong aspect of the quote. I don't think Paul was saying that the poor taxed people are having money taken from them, rather the money being spent in other countries as foreign aid is money that could have been spent in the home country on the poor.
I could be wrong, but it seems that his assessment that foreign aid does get gobbled up by the rich, the affluent, and the criminal in other countries.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
and can someone please explain what returning to the gold standard would actually solve?
It could help lessen the volatility the boom and bust cycle we know all to well. Put simply, he believes it would help to limit excessive inflation. A commodity standard would bind the currency to the value of the "scarce" commodity rather than fiat, making the currency as stable as the commodity itself.
Basically, Ron Paul sees the role of the FED as a giant price regulator, and like all regulation believes there's a loss associated. He believes when the FED prints money out of thin air (for any reason) it distorts the dollar value and there's deadweight loss associated with that "regulation" (if you want to call it that). This is where the booms and busts enter because as more or less dollars enter into the overall market our dollar value fluctuates widely around what should be equilibrium due to all these excessive alterations by the FED and lack of clarity of value with the fiat currency itself.
The booms will seem awesome when they happen, but this process sucks when the bust occurs.
I know from previous conversations with you that you are pro-Keynesian, or at least have appeared to be. Fair enough. Ron Paul, however, is the complete and total opposite. He's anti-Keynesian. He thinks the FED fucks up more than they help. Personally, I agree with him.
but firstly inflation in america isn't that much of a problem, so returning to the gold standard would solve a problem thats not really a problem
and secondly the gold standard did fuck all to prevent the great depression and in some eyes it prolonged it further, how would it know be good for stopping busts when historicly it failed miserably
I don't think the list was to prove Ron Paul was racist, rather to bring his racial politics into question. My personal favorite is number 8. If you don't support or believe in the free market, and think that welfare is a good thing then you are not sensible.
So those that don't support a "free market" economy that has never worked historically (yes free market capitalism has always been an abject failure see: Iceland, Argentina, Chile), or rather has only worked for the privileged few are nonsensical? It is interesting how living in the era of America culture that features a multimedia propaganda machine that leads generally normal individuals to say things like "socialism has never worked" and "free markets are for the best" with no historical evidence to back that up. These people believe in this so much that when others bring up the fact that 9 of the 11 best Nation-States to live in are heavily socialist, and the aforementioned failures of Randian, Chicago-boy pet projects they choose to ignore it. I'm telling you going to an even more "free market" than we already have is about the dumbest thing we could do - go check out Argentina, Chile, or Iceland and you will see what we'd be looking at. So, with just that information, I find Paul to be a horrible candidate. The racial segregation project that is neoliberal capitalism can wait.
Don't kid yourself, bringing racial politics into question is exactly trying to prove someone is racist.
how can you separate the two? Why would anyone question them without the intent of claiming someone is racist?
I do think that he overstated the sensible comment, but that shouldn't be included on a list trying to prove racism should it?
when has a free market existed without a government overly involved in stimulation in some way or another?
of the 9 on the list you talk about, how many drive the entire world economy? Wonder how well they would do without the existence of "free market economies" (don't purely exist in the time of central banks and bailouts)...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I don't think the list was to prove Ron Paul was racist, rather to bring his racial politics into question. My personal favorite is number 8. If you don't support or believe in the free market, and think that welfare is a good thing then you are not sensible.
So those that don't support a "free market" economy that has never worked historically (yes free market capitalism has always been an abject failure see: Iceland, Argentina, Chile), or rather has only worked for the privileged few are nonsensical? It is interesting how living in the era of America culture that features a multimedia propaganda machine that leads generally normal individuals to say things like "socialism has never worked" and "free markets are for the best" with no historical evidence to back that up. These people believe in this so much that when others bring up the fact that 9 of the 11 best Nation-States to live in are heavily socialist, and the aforementioned failures of Randian, Chicago-boy pet projects they choose to ignore it. I'm telling you going to an even more "free market" than we already have is about the dumbest thing we could do - go check out Argentina, Chile, or Iceland and you will see what we'd be looking at. So, with just that information, I find Paul to be a horrible candidate. The racial segregation project that is neoliberal capitalism can wait.
Don't kid yourself, bringing racial politics into question is exactly trying to prove someone is racist.
how can you separate the two? Why would anyone question them without the intent of claiming someone is racist?
I do think that he overstated the sensible comment, but that shouldn't be included on a list trying to prove racism should it?
when has a free market existed without a government overly involved in stimulation in some way or another?
of the 9 on the list you talk about, how many drive the entire world economy? Wonder how well they would do without the existence of "free market economies" (don't purely exist in the time of central banks and bailouts)...
Check out Chile, which was the Randian Chicago-Boy's practice ground...this is how it works in practice, and work it does not. As for the socialist countries not being able to exist without free market capital ones that's just a silly argument. Of course they are dependent on us, just as we are of them. That's how globalization works. I mean would Nike be able to exist with such high profits without oppressive, slave-labor conditions in 3rd world countries? Whose dependent on who in that situation? And don't give me the b.s. line that those people get paid more than others in that country, because most times Nike sets up shop on land that they lived off of subsistantly (sp?) for years and only need "jobs" because they have nothing left. Getting back to your point would those countries be worse off if we became more socialist? Would the world be worse off if more people had health care, housing, access to food, etc.? This all-for-one mentality that old Ron Paul proffers is really sad, but its a product of the times for sure.
I don't think the list was to prove Ron Paul was racist, rather to bring his racial politics into question. My personal favorite is number 8. If you don't support or believe in the free market, and think that welfare is a good thing then you are not sensible.
So those that don't support a "free market" economy that has never worked historically (yes free market capitalism has always been an abject failure see: Iceland, Argentina, Chile), or rather has only worked for the privileged few are nonsensical? It is interesting how living in the era of America culture that features a multimedia propaganda machine that leads generally normal individuals to say things like "socialism has never worked" and "free markets are for the best" with no historical evidence to back that up. These people believe in this so much that when others bring up the fact that 9 of the 11 best Nation-States to live in are heavily socialist, and the aforementioned failures of Randian, Chicago-boy pet projects they choose to ignore it. I'm telling you going to an even more "free market" than we already have is about the dumbest thing we could do - go check out Argentina, Chile, or Iceland and you will see what we'd be looking at. So, with just that information, I find Paul to be a horrible candidate. The racial segregation project that is neoliberal capitalism can wait.
You are doing the exact same thing that you called out Ron Paul for doing... Saying anyone who disagrees with you is not sensible.
A truly free-market economy has never existed. Certain countries have moved towards free-markets, some have moved away. But, no country is a free-market country, nor will there ever be one. There are many countries that have had great success moving to free-markets, however, including the notable example of China.
P.S. I know that the race card will come out in full effect as the election nears. That's pretty much all Barry O. has left in up his sleeve. It won't work though. Overall, we're not a prejudice country. We voted in a racial minority as our President... which proves that. The truth is we're also not a dumb country. Just because you're a racial minority does not mean you did a good job. America knows that. They will judge Barry O on his record, which is why he'll lose.
I don't think the list was to prove Ron Paul was racist, rather to bring his racial politics into question. My personal favorite is number 8. If you don't support or believe in the free market, and think that welfare is a good thing then you are not sensible.
So those that don't support a "free market" economy that has never worked historically (yes free market capitalism has always been an abject failure see: Iceland, Argentina, Chile), or rather has only worked for the privileged few are nonsensical? It is interesting how living in the era of America culture that features a multimedia propaganda machine that leads generally normal individuals to say things like "socialism has never worked" and "free markets are for the best" with no historical evidence to back that up. These people believe in this so much that when others bring up the fact that 9 of the 11 best Nation-States to live in are heavily socialist, and the aforementioned failures of Randian, Chicago-boy pet projects they choose to ignore it. I'm telling you going to an even more "free market" than we already have is about the dumbest thing we could do - go check out Argentina, Chile, or Iceland and you will see what we'd be looking at. So, with just that information, I find Paul to be a horrible candidate. The racial segregation project that is neoliberal capitalism can wait.
You are doing the exact same thing that you called out Ron Paul for doing... Saying anyone who disagrees with you is not sensible.
A truly free-market economy has never existed. Certain countries have moved towards free-markets, some have moved away. But, no country is a free-market country, nor will there ever be one. There are many countries that have had great success moving to free-markets, however, including the notable example of China.
P.S. I know that the race card will come out in full effect as the election nears. That's pretty much all Barry O. has left in up his sleeve. It won't work though. Overall, we're not a prejudice country. We voted in a racial minority as our President... which proves that. The truth is we're also not a dumb country. Just because you're a racial minority does not mean you did a good job. America knows that. They will judge Barry O on his record, which is why he'll lose.
As I said before China's free market is working - for the privileged few. I would never deny that...I mean look at how our "sort of" free market benefits the privileged few. Seriously, however, (and I'm not super happy with him overall) who the fuck is going to beat Barrack? I mean actually seriously. Every single republican that has gone up their with any fanfare has opened his or her mouth. Ron Paul, as a serious candidate, could not withstand the barrage that would come out based around his 20 year record as a racist newsletter writer - UNLESS we are a racist country (which we are).
I don't think the list was to prove Ron Paul was racist, rather to bring his racial politics into question. My personal favorite is number 8. If you don't support or believe in the free market, and think that welfare is a good thing then you are not sensible.
So those that don't support a "free market" economy that has never worked historically (yes free market capitalism has always been an abject failure see: Iceland, Argentina, Chile), or rather has only worked for the privileged few are nonsensical? It is interesting how living in the era of America culture that features a multimedia propaganda machine that leads generally normal individuals to say things like "socialism has never worked" and "free markets are for the best" with no historical evidence to back that up. These people believe in this so much that when others bring up the fact that 9 of the 11 best Nation-States to live in are heavily socialist, and the aforementioned failures of Randian, Chicago-boy pet projects they choose to ignore it. I'm telling you going to an even more "free market" than we already have is about the dumbest thing we could do - go check out Argentina, Chile, or Iceland and you will see what we'd be looking at. So, with just that information, I find Paul to be a horrible candidate. The racial segregation project that is neoliberal capitalism can wait.
Don't kid yourself, bringing racial politics into question is exactly trying to prove someone is racist.
how can you separate the two? Why would anyone question them without the intent of claiming someone is racist?
I do think that he overstated the sensible comment, but that shouldn't be included on a list trying to prove racism should it?
when has a free market existed without a government overly involved in stimulation in some way or another?
of the 9 on the list you talk about, how many drive the entire world economy? Wonder how well they would do without the existence of "free market economies" (don't purely exist in the time of central banks and bailouts)...
Check out Chile, which was the Randian Chicago-Boy's practice ground...this is how it works in practice, and work it does not. As for the socialist countries not being able to exist without free market capital ones that's just a silly argument. Of course they are dependent on us, just as we are of them. That's how globalization works. I mean would Nike be able to exist with such high profits without oppressive, slave-labor conditions in 3rd world countries? Whose dependent on who in that situation? And don't give me the b.s. line that those people get paid more than others in that country, because most times Nike sets up shop on land that they lived off of subsistantly (sp?) for years and only need "jobs" because they have nothing left. Getting back to your point would those countries be worse off if we became more socialist? Would the world be worse off if more people had health care, housing, access to food, etc.? This all-for-one mentality that old Ron Paul proffers is really sad, but its a product of the times for sure.
I don't offer up bs lines :P
Your last, very leading I might add, question is like when people who are anti abortion characterize people who are pro choice as being pro abortion...of course those things would make the world better, but how they get those things may or may not have consequences. (as an aside, I am all for state sponsored healthcare as a cost savings measure, however reeling that back in is going to be like herding cats. But that is more the pragmatist in me rather than the libertarian speaking.)
I would say a government that tries to protect individual rights inside of a free market is a better way to get those things for people...I am guessing you would disagree. I would argue that ours, the one I live in and care about the most, would be better off with less government involvement. I certainly could be wrong, but doesn't that mean that you could as well? We have done it without a free market for quite a while, we have done it with welfare, housing programs, and government subsidies for billionaires and we are at this point in history...
I am assuming you would argue that the state should be more involved in the economy to fix things, I would say that they should be far less involved...at least we can agree that supporting people who are simply willing to continue on the same path shouldn't be done...I chose Ron Paul as the that person...as a liberal, who do you have to choose from?
any books you recommend about the Randian Chicago-Boy pet project?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
but firstly inflation in america isn't that much of a problem, so returning to the gold standard would solve a problem thats not really a problem
First, when I said inflation, I meant both deflation and inflation. Inflation can be involved in the boom and deflation in the bust.
Second, it's not a problem? What do you use as your measurement? Please don't tell me the CPI (look up the term core inflation and the Boskin commission as to why many believe the CPI is grossly understated). Let me elaborate further... Why did the housing crash happen? What exactly was it that rose substantially... then fell substantially? House prices.
and secondly the gold standard did fuck all to prevent the great depression and in some eyes it prolonged it further, how would it know be good for stopping busts when historicly it failed miserably
What exactly do you mean by did fuck all?
Anyway, this is a good read that will retort your point on the Great Depression:
I don't think the list was to prove Ron Paul was racist, rather to bring his racial politics into question. My personal favorite is number 8. If you don't support or believe in the free market, and think that welfare is a good thing then you are not sensible.
So those that don't support a "free market" economy that has never worked historically (yes free market capitalism has always been an abject failure see: Iceland, Argentina, Chile), or rather has only worked for the privileged few are nonsensical? It is interesting how living in the era of America culture that features a multimedia propaganda machine that leads generally normal individuals to say things like "socialism has never worked" and "free markets are for the best" with no historical evidence to back that up. These people believe in this so much that when others bring up the fact that 9 of the 11 best Nation-States to live in are heavily socialist, and the aforementioned failures of Randian, Chicago-boy pet projects they choose to ignore it. I'm telling you going to an even more "free market" than we already have is about the dumbest thing we could do - go check out Argentina, Chile, or Iceland and you will see what we'd be looking at. So, with just that information, I find Paul to be a horrible candidate. The racial segregation project that is neoliberal capitalism can wait.
You are doing the exact same thing that you called out Ron Paul for doing... Saying anyone who disagrees with you is not sensible.
A truly free-market economy has never existed. Certain countries have moved towards free-markets, some have moved away. But, no country is a free-market country, nor will there ever be one. There are many countries that have had great success moving to free-markets, however, including the notable example of China.
P.S. I know that the race card will come out in full effect as the election nears. That's pretty much all Barry O. has left in up his sleeve. It won't work though. Overall, we're not a prejudice country. We voted in a racial minority as our President... which proves that. The truth is we're also not a dumb country. Just because you're a racial minority does not mean you did a good job. America knows that. They will judge Barry O on his record, which is why he'll lose.
As I said before China's free market is working - for the privileged few. I would never deny that...I mean look at how our "sort of" free market benefits the privileged few. Seriously, however, (and I'm not super happy with him overall) who the fuck is going to beat Barrack? I mean actually seriously. Every single republican that has gone up their with any fanfare has opened his or her mouth. Ron Paul, as a serious candidate, could not withstand the barrage that would come out based around his 20 year record as a racist newsletter writer - UNLESS we are a racist country (which we are).
I disagree about the privileged few line. I think there are spill-over effects. But, I digress.
The jobless (and those tired of the awful economy) are sick and tired of hearing baseless political attacks as the core message of a campaign. The whole "let me smear this new guy with subject matter not relevant to the job description to hide my job record" routine has run it's course in my opinion. The reason is the economy is horrible. People will see through it if Barry O's goal going to be to convince the average American Ron Paul is racist. The average American will see a nice old man with lots of ideas. And the average American will see the African American president they elected in four years ago (and his supporters - like you) calling them racists for supporting this other guy. It would simply show Barry O's grasping at straws. But, I bet he will try it. Because with the economy in the shitter, he's got nothing to really run on.
Mike,
I gotta run and be a good capitalist (aka buy xmas gifts), but for a strict reading on neoliberal economics you can't get much better than David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism. He touches on the effects of moving toward more "free markets" in many different national contexts. He also suggested that when neoliberalism started (really early 70s but exploded under Ronny in the 80s) that labor power in the US and other nations was too high (so he's pretty liberal but actually also fairly willing to not just take the leftist line) causing an economic crisis of a different sort. I've not read it yet, but A Political Economy of Latin America by Peter Kingstone might touch on it, and here one is http://www.amazon.com/Latin-America-Aft ... 06&sr=1-41.
It is a really short book but is very concise and to the point. The best part is, if you dont' want to read the whole book all you have to do is read the essay included at the end that sort of sums everything up.
It essentially all deals with how money is viewed. The dollar was intended to be a measure in the weight of gold. I think it was 1/20th an ounce of gold (Could be wrong about the exact amount). Over time with government forcing a value on the paper form of the dollar it has lost all meaning. A strict return to the gold standard will not do much to help us out of the mess. We will just end up back where we were in the mid 1900's when the Bretton Woods talks were going on and the governments of the world were trying to figure out how to fix a value to gold and their national currencies.
What really needs to be done is to allow competing currencies to freely compete in the free market as anytime something is "set" by a governmental force the true value has then been distorted.
im not voting for ron paul. i completely disagree with his domestic policies. if paul got the nomination i would vote for obama and hope to god there was a progressive majority in the senate and the house.
What about this option?
hell yeah!!
camacho 2012....he is gonna fix all of this shit. the "ecomony", and he will get the crops to grow and shit...
check out the pic of him giving the state of the union address to the "house of representin'"
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i'd just like to point out that 14 posters in this thread, the majority of whom already lean conservative in their own right and are already voting republican does not make a consensus...
just sayin'...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
that job beats the most physically and mentally able,
look at how the Presidents age in a matter of a few years
might be the truth they find out once in and then the lies they live
thereafter... I don't know
lots of stress for sure, what do they say ...
the most stressful things are those we have no control over.
The job seems shattering, none have been the men they were.
Dick Cheney lived for 8 years in the white house with quite possibly the worst ticker on the planet. The whole age thing is a misnomer, particularly if Paul only served 4 years then bowed out. For example, Reagan was 2 years younger than Paul when he was re-elected.
I understand that age is an issue. But, to base your vote strictly on age is silly IMHO. Platforms are much more important than looks/age/etc.
I agree it would be silly to base a vote on looks ... age I don't know
I think I may have a more objective eye for Ron Paul then some but none the less,
in my opinion, he is not up to the task.
He is way different then he was in his speeches just four years ago.
His presence has changed.
This is a big job one that carries a lot on presentation. For all we know the President is
just a figurehead and for me he does not have the confidence nor strength.
I fear he would grow ill there in that position.
I know he has been fighting a long time but perhaps his role has been to pave the way.
Is there no younger Ron Paul about?
This election pick is very disappointing, just mounting up on all else in the country.
As I said our small biz is doing the best since 911, if others are experiencing the same
which we are printing, people are bringing us bigger jobs, advertising, restaurants,
education, sports venues, retail stores, other printers etc its a sign of some
general improvement to some degree.
That might make a difference for the Democrats.
i'd just like to point out that 14 posters in this thread, the majority of whom already lean conservative in their own right and are already voting republican does not make a consensus...
just sayin'...
gimme is this kind of like when W. went on that ship and said "Mission Accomplished"?
The jobless (and those tired of the awful economy) are sick and tired of hearing baseless political attacks as the core message of a campaign. The whole "let me smear this new guy with subject matter not relevant to the job description to hide my job record" routine has run it's course in my opinion. The reason is the economy is horrible. People will see through it if Barry O's goal going to be to convince the average American Ron Paul is racist. The average American will see a nice old man with lots of ideas. And the average American will see the African American president they elected in four years ago (and his supporters - like you) calling them racists for supporting this other guy. It would simply show Barry O's grasping at straws. But, I bet he will try it. Because with the economy in the shitter, he's got nothing to really run on.
Uhhh...I'm pretty sure 20 years of racist writings in a newsletter Ron Paul put his name on is both relevant and provides no reason to further have to "convince" people that he is racist. Please understand that I'm not calling you a racist for supporting Ron Paul, I'm literally just telling you that you will be voting for a racist - that's pretty much an indisputable fact. As the guy in the video said, you may like his ideas, and beliefs, but the man himself is pretty fucked up on the topic of race. You also have to understand that if we were to somehow have hell freeze over and vote Ron Paul in as President, then the rest of the world is going to be looking at us as the country that claims to be a beacon of justice - then voted in a straight up racist. That can and should be a part of a political campaign. Just because it's a bit inconvenient to the end goal of voting him in doesn't mean he shouldn't answer to it.
If you want to bring the troops home, end Foreign aid and believe that the War on Terror is the biggest factor contributing to the economic problems then your only logical choice is to vote Ron Paul.
You don't have to vote with the herd simply because you think everyone else is doing so, be yourself and vote with your conscience. If you are one of those that don't think these are the biggest issues affecting Americans today then that's ok. Post about the issues that do concern you and stop with your pretend outrage regarding the issues i mentioned above.
If you want to bring the troops home, end Foreign aid and believe that the War on Terror is the biggest factor contributing to the economic problems then your only logical choice is to vote Ron Paul.
You don't have to vote with the herd simply because you think everyone else is doing so, be yourself and vote with your conscience. If you are one of those that don't think these are the biggest issues affecting Americans today then that's ok. Post about the issues that do concern you and stop with your pretend outrage regarding the issues i mentioned above.
...
I love the idea... voting for Ron Paul. Too bad it doesn't work that way.
The Republican Party is not going to run Ron Paul because he will not play to their agenda if elected. They know they cannot control him, so they will run someone they CAN control.
You can still write him in... but, the punch cards in November are going to be a choice between Obama or Romney.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
If you want to bring the troops home, end Foreign aid and believe that the War on Terror is the biggest factor contributing to the economic problems then your only logical choice is to vote Ron Paul.
You don't have to vote with the herd simply because you think everyone else is doing so, be yourself and vote with your conscience. If you are one of those that don't think these are the biggest issues affecting Americans today then that's ok. Post about the issues that do concern you and stop with your pretend outrage regarding the issues i mentioned above.
...
I love the idea... voting for Ron Paul. Too bad it doesn't work that way.
The Republican Party is not going to run Ron Paul because he will not play to their agenda if elected. They know they cannot control him, so they will run someone they CAN control.
You can still write him in... but, the punch cards in November are going to be a choice between Obama or Romney.
That's where my conscience takes over Cosmo. I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it.
That's where my conscience takes over Cosmo. I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it.
The lesser of two evils no more.
...
Right on, Bro! Rock that shit!
Maybe instead of people focusing on the total fucking circus that th G.O.P. is, they start a grass roots effort to write in 'Ron Paul' in the November General Election. Oherwise, It's pretty much a wrap that if nothing is done today, the Republicans will run their guy, Romney.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Ron Paul, as a serious candidate, could not withstand the barrage that would come out based around his 20 year record as a racist newsletter writer - UNLESS we are a racist country (which we are).
Racist newsletter writer? Can anyone source these writings? It's so easy to read something on the internet and take it as fact. Labeling him a racist because someone wrote racist things in his newsletter that he does not edit or publish or hardly even read is just not fair.
I think the racist term is thrown out all to quickly these days. Doing it just perpetuates ignorance and racism. I suggest doing a little more research before calling him a racist.
Look at his history at how he votes on certain things like the war on drugs as well as all the other wars we have fought. All of these wars discriminate against minorities and he is fighting to end them.
So those that don't support a "free market" economy that has never worked historically (yes free market capitalism has always been an abject failure see: Iceland, Argentina, Chile), or rather has only worked for the privileged few are nonsensical? It is interesting how living in the era of America culture that features a multimedia propaganda machine that leads generally normal individuals to say things like "socialism has never worked" and "free markets are for the best" with no historical evidence to back that up. These people believe in this so much that when others bring up the fact that 9 of the 11 best Nation-States to live in are heavily socialist, and the aforementioned failures of Randian, Chicago-boy pet projects they choose to ignore it. I'm telling you going to an even more "free market" than we already have is about the dumbest thing we could do - go check out Argentina, Chile, or Iceland and you will see what we'd be looking at. So, with just that information, I find Paul to be a horrible candidate. The racial segregation project that is neoliberal capitalism can wait.
So how do you quantify the "best nation states to live in"? Going by the HDI, the US is doing pretty well.
I would hardly call our economy a "free market". If it was, there would be no bail outs, no welfare state, no minimum wage, etc. Just because some countries are bad at trying a "free market", does not mean it always fails.
I will say that socialist policies do work very well in some European countries. I just don't think they work very well here. Different cultures/countries will work best under different forms of government and economic policies. If our elected politicians were more altruistic, I would be for more socialist policies. But they are not, because we as citizens would rather watch American Idol than read a book or inform ourselves.
It's not something I "read on the internet", it's pretty much there. He either wrote the stuff, and backed off, OR profited from some ghost writer pushing these ideals under his name. Neither one of those things are acceptable IMO. You may be able to get past it, but I cannot.
Uhhh...I'm pretty sure 20 years of racist writings in a newsletter Ron Paul put his name on is both relevant and provides no reason to further have to "convince" people that he is racist. Please understand that I'm not calling you a racist for supporting Ron Paul, I'm literally just telling you that you will be voting for a racist - that's pretty much an indisputable fact. As the guy in the video said, you may like his ideas, and beliefs, but the man himself is pretty fucked up on the topic of race. You also have to understand that if we were to somehow have hell freeze over and vote Ron Paul in as President, then the rest of the world is going to be looking at us as the country that claims to be a beacon of justice - then voted in a straight up racist. That can and should be a part of a political campaign. Just because it's a bit inconvenient to the end goal of voting him in doesn't mean he shouldn't answer to it.
I guess there is no convincing you. that is okay, we can differ on the topic. But to call him "straight up racist" is ridiculous.
This newsletter stuff came out the last election cycle, and the one before that...obviously the people who support him understand and take his response to the issue as truth, you don't...good enough...but I caution you to not take the quotes on face value and actually read the newsletter...or don't, let's be honest here, you were never going to support a GOP candidate anyway
But remember this, someone can be racially insensitive, that doesn't = racism.
***
I hadn't seen this before as I haven't ever even considered him as racist, but Nelson Linder has defended him and knows that this coming out AGAIN simply means Paul is gaining steam and the GOP establishment cannot have that.
Post edited by mikepegg44 on
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
So those that don't support a "free market" economy that has never worked historically (yes free market capitalism has always been an abject failure see: Iceland, Argentina, Chile), or rather has only worked for the privileged few are nonsensical? It is interesting how living in the era of America culture that features a multimedia propaganda machine that leads generally normal individuals to say things like "socialism has never worked" and "free markets are for the best" with no historical evidence to back that up. These people believe in this so much that when others bring up the fact that 9 of the 11 best Nation-States to live in are heavily socialist, and the aforementioned failures of Randian, Chicago-boy pet projects they choose to ignore it. I'm telling you going to an even more "free market" than we already have is about the dumbest thing we could do - go check out Argentina, Chile, or Iceland and you will see what we'd be looking at. So, with just that information, I find Paul to be a horrible candidate. The racial segregation project that is neoliberal capitalism can wait.
I think the author of this focused on the wrong aspect of the quote. I don't think Paul was saying that the poor taxed people are having money taken from them, rather the money being spent in other countries as foreign aid is money that could have been spent in the home country on the poor.
I could be wrong, but it seems that his assessment that foreign aid does get gobbled up by the rich, the affluent, and the criminal in other countries.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x408cr ... uotes_news
but firstly inflation in america isn't that much of a problem, so returning to the gold standard would solve a problem thats not really a problem
and secondly the gold standard did fuck all to prevent the great depression and in some eyes it prolonged it further, how would it know be good for stopping busts when historicly it failed miserably
how can you separate the two? Why would anyone question them without the intent of claiming someone is racist?
I do think that he overstated the sensible comment, but that shouldn't be included on a list trying to prove racism should it?
when has a free market existed without a government overly involved in stimulation in some way or another?
of the 9 on the list you talk about, how many drive the entire world economy? Wonder how well they would do without the existence of "free market economies" (don't purely exist in the time of central banks and bailouts)...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3xb4t ... rel-page-3
You are doing the exact same thing that you called out Ron Paul for doing... Saying anyone who disagrees with you is not sensible.
A truly free-market economy has never existed. Certain countries have moved towards free-markets, some have moved away. But, no country is a free-market country, nor will there ever be one. There are many countries that have had great success moving to free-markets, however, including the notable example of China.
P.S. I know that the race card will come out in full effect as the election nears. That's pretty much all Barry O. has left in up his sleeve. It won't work though. Overall, we're not a prejudice country. We voted in a racial minority as our President... which proves that. The truth is we're also not a dumb country. Just because you're a racial minority does not mean you did a good job. America knows that. They will judge Barry O on his record, which is why he'll lose.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I don't offer up bs lines :P
Your last, very leading I might add, question is like when people who are anti abortion characterize people who are pro choice as being pro abortion...of course those things would make the world better, but how they get those things may or may not have consequences. (as an aside, I am all for state sponsored healthcare as a cost savings measure, however reeling that back in is going to be like herding cats. But that is more the pragmatist in me rather than the libertarian speaking.)
I would say a government that tries to protect individual rights inside of a free market is a better way to get those things for people...I am guessing you would disagree. I would argue that ours, the one I live in and care about the most, would be better off with less government involvement. I certainly could be wrong, but doesn't that mean that you could as well? We have done it without a free market for quite a while, we have done it with welfare, housing programs, and government subsidies for billionaires and we are at this point in history...
I am assuming you would argue that the state should be more involved in the economy to fix things, I would say that they should be far less involved...at least we can agree that supporting people who are simply willing to continue on the same path shouldn't be done...I chose Ron Paul as the that person...as a liberal, who do you have to choose from?
any books you recommend about the Randian Chicago-Boy pet project?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
First, when I said inflation, I meant both deflation and inflation. Inflation can be involved in the boom and deflation in the bust.
Second, it's not a problem? What do you use as your measurement? Please don't tell me the CPI (look up the term core inflation and the Boskin commission as to why many believe the CPI is grossly understated). Let me elaborate further... Why did the housing crash happen? What exactly was it that rose substantially... then fell substantially? House prices.
What exactly do you mean by did fuck all?
Anyway, this is a good read that will retort your point on the Great Depression:
http://mises.org/daily/3778
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I disagree about the privileged few line. I think there are spill-over effects. But, I digress.
The jobless (and those tired of the awful economy) are sick and tired of hearing baseless political attacks as the core message of a campaign. The whole "let me smear this new guy with subject matter not relevant to the job description to hide my job record" routine has run it's course in my opinion. The reason is the economy is horrible. People will see through it if Barry O's goal going to be to convince the average American Ron Paul is racist. The average American will see a nice old man with lots of ideas. And the average American will see the African American president they elected in four years ago (and his supporters - like you) calling them racists for supporting this other guy. It would simply show Barry O's grasping at straws. But, I bet he will try it. Because with the economy in the shitter, he's got nothing to really run on.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I gotta run and be a good capitalist (aka buy xmas gifts), but for a strict reading on neoliberal economics you can't get much better than David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism. He touches on the effects of moving toward more "free markets" in many different national contexts. He also suggested that when neoliberalism started (really early 70s but exploded under Ronny in the 80s) that labor power in the US and other nations was too high (so he's pretty liberal but actually also fairly willing to not just take the leftist line) causing an economic crisis of a different sort. I've not read it yet, but A Political Economy of Latin America by Peter Kingstone might touch on it, and here one is http://www.amazon.com/Latin-America-Aft ... 06&sr=1-41.
If you really want a good answer to that question I would recommend reading this:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Government-M ... 938&sr=8-9
It is a really short book but is very concise and to the point. The best part is, if you dont' want to read the whole book all you have to do is read the essay included at the end that sort of sums everything up.
It essentially all deals with how money is viewed. The dollar was intended to be a measure in the weight of gold. I think it was 1/20th an ounce of gold (Could be wrong about the exact amount). Over time with government forcing a value on the paper form of the dollar it has lost all meaning. A strict return to the gold standard will not do much to help us out of the mess. We will just end up back where we were in the mid 1900's when the Bretton Woods talks were going on and the governments of the world were trying to figure out how to fix a value to gold and their national currencies.
What really needs to be done is to allow competing currencies to freely compete in the free market as anytime something is "set" by a governmental force the true value has then been distorted.
camacho 2012....he is gonna fix all of this shit. the "ecomony", and he will get the crops to grow and shit...
check out the pic of him giving the state of the union address to the "house of representin'"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
just sayin'...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I think I may have a more objective eye for Ron Paul then some but none the less,
in my opinion, he is not up to the task.
He is way different then he was in his speeches just four years ago.
His presence has changed.
This is a big job one that carries a lot on presentation. For all we know the President is
just a figurehead and for me he does not have the confidence nor strength.
I fear he would grow ill there in that position.
I know he has been fighting a long time but perhaps his role has been to pave the way.
Is there no younger Ron Paul about?
This election pick is very disappointing, just mounting up on all else in the country.
As I said our small biz is doing the best since 911, if others are experiencing the same
which we are printing, people are bringing us bigger jobs, advertising, restaurants,
education, sports venues, retail stores, other printers etc its a sign of some
general improvement to some degree.
That might make a difference for the Democrats.
Hail, Hail!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/jon-stewarts-liberal-chal_b_984563.html
You don't have to vote with the herd simply because you think everyone else is doing so, be yourself and vote with your conscience. If you are one of those that don't think these are the biggest issues affecting Americans today then that's ok. Post about the issues that do concern you and stop with your pretend outrage regarding the issues i mentioned above.
I love the idea... voting for Ron Paul. Too bad it doesn't work that way.
The Republican Party is not going to run Ron Paul because he will not play to their agenda if elected. They know they cannot control him, so they will run someone they CAN control.
You can still write him in... but, the punch cards in November are going to be a choice between Obama or Romney.
Hail, Hail!!!
The lesser of two evils no more.
Right on, Bro! Rock that shit!
Maybe instead of people focusing on the total fucking circus that th G.O.P. is, they start a grass roots effort to write in 'Ron Paul' in the November General Election. Oherwise, It's pretty much a wrap that if nothing is done today, the Republicans will run their guy, Romney.
Hail, Hail!!!
Racist newsletter writer? Can anyone source these writings? It's so easy to read something on the internet and take it as fact. Labeling him a racist because someone wrote racist things in his newsletter that he does not edit or publish or hardly even read is just not fair.
I think the racist term is thrown out all to quickly these days. Doing it just perpetuates ignorance and racism. I suggest doing a little more research before calling him a racist.
Look at his history at how he votes on certain things like the war on drugs as well as all the other wars we have fought. All of these wars discriminate against minorities and he is fighting to end them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw
So if we do live in a racist country like you said, a racist like Ron Paul could get elected right?
So how do you quantify the "best nation states to live in"? Going by the HDI, the US is doing pretty well.
I would hardly call our economy a "free market". If it was, there would be no bail outs, no welfare state, no minimum wage, etc. Just because some countries are bad at trying a "free market", does not mean it always fails.
I will say that socialist policies do work very well in some European countries. I just don't think they work very well here. Different cultures/countries will work best under different forms of government and economic policies. If our elected politicians were more altruistic, I would be for more socialist policies. But they are not, because we as citizens would rather watch American Idol than read a book or inform ourselves.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12 ... -paul-hype
It's not something I "read on the internet", it's pretty much there. He either wrote the stuff, and backed off, OR profited from some ghost writer pushing these ideals under his name. Neither one of those things are acceptable IMO. You may be able to get past it, but I cannot.
I guess there is no convincing you. that is okay, we can differ on the topic. But to call him "straight up racist" is ridiculous.
This newsletter stuff came out the last election cycle, and the one before that...obviously the people who support him understand and take his response to the issue as truth, you don't...good enough...but I caution you to not take the quotes on face value and actually read the newsletter...or don't, let's be honest here, you were never going to support a GOP candidate anyway
But remember this, someone can be racially insensitive, that doesn't = racism.
***
I hadn't seen this before as I haven't ever even considered him as racist, but Nelson Linder has defended him and knows that this coming out AGAIN simply means Paul is gaining steam and the GOP establishment cannot have that.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Please let me out of this brainwashed hell.