Much of his persona, sincere or not, seems to boil down to "Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff."
But he also has a number of beliefs that are, not to put too fine a point on it, utterly insane. The gold standard is one
| The empirical record on deficits and debts, and government attempts to monetize the debt certainly fits the story of Hayek and Buchanan. And, the policy solutions they propose seem to logically follow. If the natural proclivity of democratic governments is to concentrate benefits on the well-organized and well informed in the short-run, and disperse the costs on the unorganized and ill-informed in the long-run, then budgetary deficits and public debt do appear to be the most politically popular. Government can only raise revenue in 1 of 3 ways: borrow, tax, inflate. Taxation whle the most transparent, is also the most politically unpopular. Better to borrow now, and then pay back debt with cheaper dolloars later via inflation. So how do you stop this policy cycle? Take away governments ability to inflate is what I would argue (and have) through abolishing the current Central Banking regime and instead instituting one of a variety of alternative monetary regimes. I tend to favor a free banking regime -- but a classic gold standard would work better than our current arrangement to curb the inflationary tendencies. --http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2007/12/ms-mcardle-plea.html (http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2007/12/ms-mcardle-plea.html) |
| The 'self-taught' economics of Ron Paul (whatever other problems I might have with him and his presentation of these ideas) is grounded in sound scientific economics. An understanding of the logic of human action, the coordinating capacity of the market economy, the problems with bureaucracy, the special pleading of interest groups, and the destructive capacity of inflation are fundamental to his economic policy message. --http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2007/12/you-cannot-be-s.html (http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2007/12/you-cannot-be-s.html) |
Ron is our Kucinich, he's not to be taken seriously. His recent comments about Huckabee's Christmas ad are enough for anyone to realize what a loon he is.
Ron Paul is a fringe cook, and everybody knows it.
So now you're reduced to a typo Nazi?
Kind of says it all ...
So Ron Paul is for open borders?
So if he isn't for open borders and he is in favor of the 700 mile fence and he thinks the whole immigration issue is really about welfare programs that illegal immigrants sap what part of McArdles statement do you find misleading?
This is an article by Tucker Carlson in The New Republic, about his campaign trip with Ron Paul. Interesting and funny at times.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=83665295-1de6-4571-af9c-0a90f6d1fde0
Perhaps if most of us were very self disaplined we could get by with much less government.
=============================================================
The problem is that a government is always needed to define limits of how far your liberty goes.
Do you have the right to sell Chinese goods as designer European brands?
Do you have the right to sell copied CD's or DVD's?
Should you have the right to mint gold and silver coins with the correct weight of the metal stamped clearly on them?
Shame about Air Force Amy. Paul may be non judgmental according to Carlson but apparently his staff is.
You have this example then the newsletter example and one has to wonder if a pattern forms.
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border.
Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?
PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important.
More on Paul:
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/19/paul-to-keep-donation-from-white-supremacist/
| CAVUTO: There are reports, sir, that your campaign has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist in West Palm Beach. And your campaign had indicated you have no intention to return it. What are you going to do with that? PAUL: It is probably already spent. Why give it back to him and use it for bad purposes? And I don't even know his name. I never heard of it. You know, when you get 57,000 donations a day, are we supposed to screen them and find out their beliefs? He sent the money for my beliefs. And if he promoting my viewpoints and my attitudes, why give it back to him if he has bad viewpoints? And I don't endorse anything that he endorses or what anybody endorses. They come to me to endorse freedom and the Constitution and limited government. So, I see no purpose for me to start screening everybody that sends me money. I mean, it is impossible to do it. It is a ridiculous idea that I am supposed to screen these people. CAVUTO: All right. So, Congressman, when you find out that it's this Don Black who made the donation, and who ran a site called Stormfront, White Pride Worldwide, now that you know it, now that you're familiar after the fact, you still would not return it? PAUL: Well, if I spent his money and I took the money that maybe you might have sent to me and donate it back to him, that does not make any sense to me. Why should I give him money to promote his cause? That doesn't make any sense to me. --http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124032.html (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124032.html) |
Morris ran numerous attacks, including publicizing issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) that included derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians.[49][50] Alluding to a 1992 study finding that "of black men in Washington ... about 85 percent are arrested at some point in their lives",[51][52] the newsletter proposed assuming that "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", and stated that "the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black males, who commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers".[53][54]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaign_controversy
| In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[55] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[30] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."[7] |
all they seem to do is rise up, en masse, and yell about how everyone on the planet is wrong except them.
This is an article by Tucker Carlson in The New Republic, about his campaign trip with Ron Paul.
| The first time I heard Paul talk about monetary policy, I'd felt like a hostage, the only person in the room who didn't buy into the program. Then, slowly, like so many hostages, I started to open my mind and listen. By the time we got to Reno, unfamiliar thoughts were beginning to occur: Why shouldn't we worry about the soundness of the currency? What exactly is the dollar backed by anyway? And, if the gold standard is crazy, is it really any crazier than hedge funds? I'd become Patty Hearst, ready to take up arms for the cause, or at least call my accountant and tell him to buy Krugerrands. I looked over at Dennis and the girls. They looked like they might be having the same thoughts. |
What about people who are accustomed to leaning on the fences that society and government erect ?
So the fence ain't really a big deal for him.
Do you have the right to sell Chinese goods as designer European brands?
Should you have the right to mint gold and silver coins with the correct weight of the metal stamped clearly on them?
He voted for it.
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.
What about people who are accustomed to leaning on the fences that society and government erect ?
They'll get used to leaning on fences made by someone else.
Sheesh, BT. I don't know what the hell you have against Ron Paul, but I really would expect you, Mr. Wait-till-all-the-facts-are-in, to be a bit more fair. Are you so offended by and/or scared of Ron Paul that feel you need to denigrate him?
Then they are still relying on someone elese to decide for them what they should do.
Oh I'm sure you have plenty of excuses for Dr. Paul.
taking money from a white supremacist is OK because it's less money for the supremacist to do evil.
Or he really doesn't care that much about the fence. It was just the peas in the beef stew and he likes beef stew even if he really isn't fond of peas.
He really doesn't think the 85% of blacks in DC are criminals, even though it was in his newsletter, a staffer wrote it ya know.
The pattern that forms is Paul doesn't hire well. And a chief executive needs to be able to do that.
I just don't think he is the right person to lead this country at this time.
Then they are still relying on someone elese to decide for them what they should do.
Possibly. So?
So couple of errors in a span of something like 30 years and you think this means he doesn't hire well? And now you're going to complain that he doesn't micromanage to the point of perfection? Oh, and of course, Ron Paul is in the spotlight, so let's not mention Giuliani or Romney or any other candidate. You went looking for a reason to discount him, and you found it. Of course, if this is really the best you've got against Ron Paul, he still comes out ahead as the best candidate.
People don't want to see all the money they have put into Social Security disappear down the drain.
No, it's NOT too late. People are still receiving their SS, and the government has bonds that are redeemable for future SS payments.
Prince, to be fair, a person should be able to look at a candidate's qualifications and newsletters and be proud of them, or at least not turned off by them, even when not compared with other runners in the race.
Does he have to be propped up by Giuliani on one side or Romney etc. on the other to look good?
Paul sounds like a sweet man but not that detail-oriented, and boy do we need someone who'll pay attention to details. Minute ones. I'd love to have a candidate we could accuse of micro-managing; at least it means he's paying attention.
People don't want to see all the money they have put into Social Security disappear down the drain.
Redo the money and tax system, and all that stuff, not good. But to him it's like really really important. I don't think that is what the country is crying for right now, it's just not even on the list. The long list.
We have some bad problems facing us. I don't think he is able to view them clearly. I think he's focusing on some far-off mountains, and isn't looking at the sheer cliff the country is about to go over (my view).
In Paul's 10 terms in congress has he introduced and had passed any significant legislation that actually changed things?
Yes.
No, it's NOT too late. People are still receiving their SS, and the government has bonds that are redeemable for future SS payments.
This crap about how it's all over is just crap.
Whoever was president when they stopped paying SS or said "too late" would be thrown out on his butt, and deservedly so.
QuoteYes.
What?
In Paul's 10 terms in congress has he introduced and had passed any significant legislation that actually changed things?
| Paul sponsors many more bills than the average representative, such as those that would abolish the income tax[66] or the Federal Reserve; many do not reach the House floor for a vote. Nevertheless, he has been named one of the "50 Most Effective Members of Congress" by Congressional Quarterly.[67] He has sponsored successful legislation to prevent the Department of Housing and Urban Development from seizing a church in New York through eminent domain, and a bill transferring ownership of the Lake Texana dam project from the federal government to Texas.[30] By successfully amending other legislation, he has also barred International Criminal Court jurisdiction over the U.S. military (2002), American participation in any U.N. "global tax" (2005), and surveillance on peaceful First Amendment activities by citizens (2006). |
It is too late already.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In your mind, you have been convinced of this, against your own interests.
I suggest you persevere in this attitude by never locking your doors and leaving the keys in the ignition as further signs that you have given up.
If Paul bitches about earmarks all the time, then he sneaks earmarks in, he definitely needs to be questioned on it.
But he has a whole bunch of policies that simply won't fly in ANY modern country. I didn't find him to be especially Christian. I mean, he did not advocate pagan sacrifices or speak of zodiac signs, and seems to be a typical non-religious old grandfather. I think whatever compassion he might have for people comes a lot more from his being a doctor than his attending Sunday school.
Obviously, he has enjoyed scaring people with frightening Libertarian blather in the past, like returning to the gold standard, abolishing damned near the entire government, and such,
but now that he is approaching a serious candidacy, he is backtracking like crazy with "no, not quiet abolition", "no, you don't understand", "no, I would make no abrupt changes" and statements like those.
It looks to me as though if he really doesn't like the nominee, he might just run as a Libertarian. Of course, this would not get him elected, and would likely reward the Democrats, so it's more of an ego thing from any pragmatic view.
Ah, but I WAS paying attention. Here is what I did not hear.
Here is what you say to dispel all doubt.
"If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve."
Everyone KNOWS this is how you say it.
He did not say this, so if he really really doesn't like the Republican nominee, then he might run.
I can't remember a time when Tim Russert has ever questioned another Republican candidate as harshly as he questions Ron Paul here. You'd think he never hosted a candidate who put earmarks in bills.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvuFdJXLaGg