MT Consensus: Ron Paul

BinauralJam

RW81233 wrote:

I can see why he appeals to many people on this board (read: middle-upper class white people, who truly believe they have earned everything they've gotten), and for good reason since many of you own or run businesses based on the fact that you did work hard at some level. Further I think he's appealing because he wants to bring troops home, etc. However, I am definitely not voting for a (borderline) racist (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/07 ... nd-racist/), or someone whose domestic economic policies are so retrograde that it would only exacerbate class inequality in our country.

Well, that's dissappointing.

UpSideDown

Ron Paul gets my vote

Wilds

I've been independent since I first voted for Clinton in his first term. I've voted Democrat each year, mostly because they seemed like the less evil side of the same coin.

Warmongering is our countries policy and has been since we had our opportunity to rule the world after WWII.

We occupy every country we 'help' and will never leave.

I'm anti war. This is the best reason to vote for Ron Paul. He is anti war. His domestic policy seems extreme, but he will not be able to do too much domestically, but I think overall he will be good for this country.

He will take a stab at running government without the bloated part. Allow smaller governance to take over where the Federal government has no business.

He is the only candidate who has any principle at all and doesn't cater to get a vote. He believes in what he says and votes accordingly.

Is he perfect. No. Is the the best man for the job. Absolutely.

I'm currently registered Republican. Never thought I would see the day that happened.

I plan on voting Paul in the primary and hopefully again in the Presidential election.

inlet13

Wilds wrote:

He is the only candidate who has any principle at all and doesn't cater to get a vote. He believes in what he says and votes accordingly.

Is he perfect. No. Is the the best man for the job. Absolutely.

This.

Wilds wrote:

I'm currently registered Republican. Never thought I would see the day that happened.

And this is exactly what this thread's about...

satansbed

Wilds wrote:

I've been independent since I first voted for Clinton in his first term. I've voted Democrat each year, mostly because they seemed like the less evil side of the same coin.

Warmongering is our countries policy and has been since we had our opportunity to rule the world after WWII.

We occupy every country we 'help' and will never leave.

I'm anti war. This is the best reason to vote for Ron Paul. He is anti war. His domestic policy seems extreme, but he will not be able to do too much domestically, but I think overall he will be good for this country.

He will take a stab at running government without the bloated part. Allow smaller governance to take over where the Federal government has no business.

He is the only candidate who has any principle at all and doesn't cater to get a vote. He believes in what he says and votes accordingly.

Is he perfect. No. Is the the best man for the job. Absolutely.

I'm currently registered Republican. Never thought I would see the day that happened.

I plan on voting Paul in the primary and hopefully again in the Presidential election.

america isn't occuyping lybia

mikepegg44

BinauralJam wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

I can see why he appeals to many people on this board (read: middle-upper class white people, who truly believe they have earned everything they've gotten), and for good reason since many of you own or run businesses based on the fact that you did work hard at some level. Further I think he's appealing because he wants to bring troops home, etc. However, I am definitely not voting for a (borderline) racist (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/07 ... nd-racist/), or someone whose domestic economic policies are so retrograde that it would only exacerbate class inequality in our country.

Well, that's dissappointing.

The comment about the washington DC justice system was taken so far out of context the entire "list" proving he is a racist is rendered useless. If you cannot recognize that as a statement on the inequity of incarcerated individuals in the nations capital I don't know what to tell you. I wonder why it stops where it does. It is an attempt to smear. That is all.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."
wonder who wrote that...but I guess we are only supposed to believe the bad stuff that is written when taken out of context 20 years later...
i could go through the comments and refute each and everyone as a racist comment, but I will let everyone decide for themselves what the man's feelings are...
how many people on here consider Joe Biden a racist? or Harry Reid? you can find this crap on them too...bullshit

mikepegg44

Wilds wrote:

Is he perfect. No. Is the the best man for the job. Absolutely.

this sums it up nicely

satansbed

foreign aid: why ron paul is wrong

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.

to continue reading

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... eign-aid-0

satansbed

and can someone please explain what returning to the gold standard would actually solve?

inlet13

satansbed wrote:

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.

RW81233

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.

mikepegg44

satansbed wrote:

foreign aid: why ron paul is wrong

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.

to continue reading

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... eign-aid-0

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.

RW81233

This for our future Prez?
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x408cr ... uotes_news

satansbed

inlet13 wrote:

satansbed wrote:

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

mikepegg44

RW81233 wrote:

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)...

RW81233

well he kind of is racist:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3xb4t ... rel-page-3

RW81233

mikepegg44 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

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.

inlet13

RW81233 wrote:

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.

RW81233

inlet13 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

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).

mikepegg44

RW81233 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

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?