Ron Paul On The Record

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
861

[quote]vroom wrote:

Libertarianism, anarchy, or whatever should be able to stand on it’s own without trying to reinvent economics in order to support an ideology. And, no, personally, I don’t agree with any one pure ideology. None of them to date have ever been perfect.[/quote]

Nobody re-invented anything.

Historically Keynesianism is the abberation and it is allready dying.

All economists use Austrian concepts constantly without even knowing it, like “marginal utility.”

Wheather it it is the Chicago school or the Austrian one, the original liberal economics have made a big comeback because Keynessianism failed.

Miserably.

862

[quote]vroom wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, worst case scenario, Lifticus and others like him have an “open mind” that operates like a blank Word document with a lone blinking cursor, just waiting on some noisy demagogue to write freehand across it and it suddenly be “the Truth” to said “open mind”.

LOL.

Nice way to slam the concept of an “open mind”. Anyhow, your characterization is almost as silly as the situation of having your mind made up no matter what the actual facts are.

We see a lot of that around here too.[/quote]

As usual, you swing and miss. If you read more carefully, you’ll notice the quote marks around the term “open mind” (scare quotes) - as in, that ain’t really what an open mind is all about in my opinion, but that is the version Lifticus operates by and thinks is an “open mind”.

And you are correct, my characterization of an “open mind” was describes that type of operation as silly - that was intentional and the entire point. The type of “open mind” I suggested is no worthwhile open mind at all - and not what I consider to be a legitimate “open mind”, hence my attack on operating that way.

Thanks for playing, though.

866

[quote]vroom wrote:
Libertarianism, anarchy, or whatever should be able to stand on it’s own without trying to reinvent economics in order to support an ideology. And, no, personally, I don’t agree with any one pure ideology. None of them to date have ever been perfect.[/quote]

These ideas were born out of economics; economics wasn’t rewritten to fit them. It is precisely because of the laws of economics that libertarianism works.

By regulation I mean legislation that that seeks to affect behavior in the market. No written law can make man behave “correctly” otherwise with all our laws there would be no prisons; however, it is the threat of punishment that can deter many crimes. That can only come about with a judicial system working under a well defined rule of law. Do not mistake laws against murder and theft as “regulation” as they are naturally protected under property rights which seek to punish man after the fact–this is the only bastion of a free society. How can a man be free if he fears for his life, limb, or property?

I just finished a really good book called Free to Choose, by Milton Friedman that explains these ideas much better than I ever could. If you want to know how libertarians think the market and government should operate to best serve freedom it is a must read–it really changed my mind about the notion of capitalism.

867

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Please, don’t mistake your pejorative statements as analysis. These are your opinions and nothing more.

Get a clue Paulie, political analysis is usually opinion.
[/quote]
yes, in a very “Anne Coulter-ish” sort of way. I am speaking about your pejorative remarks only, powderpuff.

868

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, worst case scenario, Lifticus and others like him have an “open mind” that operates like a blank Word document with a lone blinking cursor, just waiting on some noisy demagogue to write freehand across it and it suddenly be “the Truth” to said “open mind”.
[/quote]
How many truths are there? I’ll bet there are more than one. As far as being swayed easily by “demagogues”, not exactly. I require some evidence to have my mind changed and do not just hang on others words–otherwise, I might still be a Christian waiting for salvation.

869

[quote]vroom wrote:
Do you have any idea what the hell you are talking about?
[/quote]
Yes.

If you don’t understand how both of those statements fit together then let me explain better–or attempt to. The market it both subjective and objective at the same time. Supply can be determined but demand cannot. Price is a reflection of both of those known and unknown values.

When I say the market sets the price I mean that it is determined by voluntary participation between “actors” in the market based on what is known at any given moment in time–thus it always changes. The value of the duty I perform today may change tomorrow–up or down–based on other infinitesimal market forces.

The reason it is relative is because it is reflected by how much money is floating in the system.

The individual consumer/producer is all that matters in economics. He is the basis for supply and demand–that is all. In the end it comes down to the fact that all organisms have needs and all organisms compete with other organisms for those needs because of scarcity. Every idea in economics is derived from these principles.

870

[center]The End of Dollar Hegemony

by Ron Paul[/center]

Before the US House of Representatives, February 15, 2006

A hundred years ago it was called “dollar diplomacy.” After World War II, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that policy evolved into “dollar hegemony.” But after all these many years of great success, our dollar dominance is coming to an end…

872

Mick,

I’ve been following this thread from the beginning and each time you post, this thought comes into my mind.

What are you getting out of this? Nominal, Lifty, Orion and others are obviously attempting to help Dr. Paul spread his messege. You (as well as Jeff) seem to get off on shitting on these others hopes. Why? Seriously, I’m not being a dick here. I’m just curious as to why it is that you spend your free time this way.

873

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Do you honestly think that Paul will ever crack the 10% mark in any legitimate national poll? [/quote]

Yeah, he’ll crack 10% after he becomes the official nominee.

The people voting in those polls are probably not going to be at the primaries in a few months. They are members of the general public. They don’t follow politics closely. They don’t use the internet and they still get their news from mainstream sources. No wonder they don’t know who Ron Paul is.

The good news is that these individuals aren’t going to be responsible for deciding who wins the Republican nomination. The majority of them simply don’t care enough to participate in the primaries.

Do you think that Ron Paul is still unknown within the GOP? I highly doubt it.

If not, then what real difference does it make that the public-at-large still doesn’t know him?

The general public will know who Ron Paul is when he wins the Republican nomination.

Until then, the fewer people who know about him, the easier it will be for his dedicated supporters to sway votes at districts all across the country.

I made the point several months ago that there were too many contenders in the race for the public to know who to vote for. So they were defaulting to the big-name guys, mainly Rudy and McCain. Now, the crowd is thinning, and the original front-runners are slipping. Give it another month or so, let more people drop out, and Ron Paul’s support will increase linearly.

When it’s down to 2 or 3 contenders, everyone will know who they are, and by then the general public will know enough to have formed a real opinion.

They call Ron Paul a “dark horse” for a reason. He is going to slip in through the back door and take the nomination. At least, that’s the plan.

876

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Wanna bet?

Oh that’s right you won’t stand behind your man, I forgot, sorry.[/quote]

No, I don’t want to bet.

This is not a contest of ego’s.

Ron Paul may not win. I fully, completely, utterly, recognize that. Have since day 1.

I am here to talk about the man and discuss his campaign as it unfolds.

You are operating under a false assumption.

Do you think it’s a waste of time for anyone to talk about Ron Paul even if “he can’t win”? If so, tell me why? What makes it a waste of time? People talk about the things that interest them. If Ron Paul is going to be crushed at the polls in a few months, well then, we’ve got a few months worth of things to talk about until that happens.

What part of the above do you NOT understand?

Nobody on this thread is a hypocrite. It is not a sin to discuss a subject of mutual interest with others.

You haven’t contributed anything to the discussion. You seem to think that everyone here has an axe to grind. To the contrary, that only describes you. You don’t have to continually remind us of his odds. Trust me, WE KNOW.

You are an intellectual tyrant. You step into a discussion taking place among a group of friends, and try to impose your “rules” upon them. “Thou shalt not speak of Ron Paul unless thou art willing to place a bet on his behalf” What the fuck? Step off your high horse, imbecile.

If this “debate” were taking place in real life, you would have gotten your ass kicked 10 times over by now. Unfortunately, people only try to pull shit like this on the internet. Despicable.

877

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

[b]FACT 1. Paul has yet to crack the 3% mark.

FACT 2. Paul is running an underfunded campaign.

FACT 3. Paul does NOT have a well known name.

FACT 4. Congressmen don’t get elected President.

FACT 5. Paul’s major support comes from those 18 to
23 in age. Which is the very group that
votes the least in major elections.

FACT 6. Paul lacks the charisma of a Reagan, Clinton
or JFK.[/b]

[/quote]

Here’s to your “facts”

(1) Paul has placed either first or second in every major poll after each televised debate. You only use the statistics when they support your viewpoint but you refuse to recognize other legitimate factors which testify to Paul’s growing fan base.

(2) This is just completely false. The only way this statement could have any validity would be if his campaign was sinking in debt. It’s not. His donations are only increasing and he’s the most fiscally responsible candidate out there backed by loyal supporters who do more for promoting him then any other candidates fan base.

(3) Another pointless observation. According to your logic Kevin Federline would be the next President of the United States.

(4) When was the last time a woman was elected President? When was the last time an african-american was elected president? When was the last time a city mayor was elected president? There’s your top tier candidates - chalk one more meaningless observation up for camp mick.

(5) First of all I think you’re referring to the 18-29 age group and second of all they consist of about 20% of the vote. How many 18-29 year olds participate in straw polls and how has Ron Paul been doing so well in those without his 18-29 loyalists?

(6) Just because you found yourself more stimulated by Reagan, Clinton, and JFK does not mean Paul has less charisma. If Ron Paul has less charisma why does he win all of the television polls? In fact, why do you keep using arguments that have already proven to be ridiculous?

What are you going to say when Ron Paul wins the polls after the debate tomorrow night Mick?

Why can’t you discuss actual policy or issues? What candidate do you think offers better ideas than Ron Paul? See that kind of conversation would require some thought on your part so feel free to participate any time.

878

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

I know how the Presidency is won, I’ve made a study of it and worked on many political campaigns. [/quote]

At a local, state or federal level and in what capacity?