DescentBB

It would be so nice to get a guy like this in the White House. A guy that is actually able to say mid conversation, \"___ once wrote_____\".

Heh. If by some miracle Ron Paul actually gets the Republican nomination, I will actually vote Republican for the first time in my entire life.

One of the few GOP'ers that actually gets it. They don't hate us because we're rich, or because we flaunt our women...why does this guy get it and no one else does?

Saw him on Bill Maher awhile back...good guy..dont' know if he's enough to vote Red...bad bad party.

A lot like Ross Peroit though he won't stand a snowballs chance in hell of being elected.

i like to think i could vote either way, blue, red, or green. So i'd say he's got a better shot with me than what else is on the plate at the moment.

lol. Ron Paul is a punchline, not a candidate.

Of course, most of the candidates are a joke as well- sad state of affairs.

Kilarin wrote:Heh. If by some miracle Ron Paul actually gets the Republican nomination, I will actually vote Republican for the first time in my entire life.

same

Wow. After reading up on this guy, I'm quite impressed. I don't totally agree with his stance on foreign policy, but I would be willing to let that slide in the event that he got the nomination.

Ron Paul is decent, Kucinich is decent as well. All the other ones just plain suck. I really don't like Mitt Romney, and Hillary seems too much as all she cares about is being elected. None of them seem as bad as Bush (except mabye Romney), but still. I'm glad I can't vote until 2011, becuase I think I'd just plain old stab everyone in the voting area in fustration.

My biggest beef with Ron Paul, and \"libertarians\" in general, is the desire to eliminate the Federal Reserve. Nothing like disastrous monetary policy to ruin my opinion of a candidate.

But as little of a chance there is that he would be elected, there's even less that he would be able to eliminate the Fed. That's Congress' domain, not the Executive's.

I've yet to decide whom I'd vote for given the current crop.

DCrazy wrote:My biggest beef with Ron Paul, and "libertarians" in general, is the desire to eliminate the Federal Reserve. Nothing like disastrous monetary policy to ruin my opinion of a candidate.

The federal reserve is a private organization. It is about as Federal as FedEx. All of our nation's currency (read: ALL OF IT) is on loan to us with a small amount of interest attached.

If all of our money comes from the federal reserve...and all of that money has interest accumilating... where does the money to pay off the debt comes from? thats right, the federal reserve!

All this is, is taking out one loan, to pay off an existing loan.



Now tell me, how does this create financial stability?

Blue, I don't need you to teach me about how the Fed works. The Federal Reserve is a private organization insomuch as it is not liable to the whims of Congress. It is, however, a chartered national bank, and it would take no more than an act of Congress to revoke that charter. Your statement that it is \"no more federal than FedEx\" is false.

Where is this \"interest\" you speak of coming from? Explain to me how you believe the Federal Reserve system works, so that I may deduce where you think this magical ambiguous \"interest\" comes from.

Just my personal opinion but even if he was the only person running I would never, ever, vote for him for the following reasons.

1. Abortion... He is a pro-life extremist.

2. Stem Cell research... He is totally against it. (Religious views).

3. He Opposes capital punishment. Child killers should live.

4. Human Rights... He would not interfere with genocide occuring in foreign countries. He would not have put an end to the oppression of women in afghanistan.

5. Iran... He claims nonintervention. (Let them have a nuclear weapon.)

6. Terrorism... Nothing preemptive allowed. Wait until something happens then hurt them but only as much as they hurt us... not more or less.

Bettina

DCrazy wrote:Where is this "interest" you speak of coming from? Explain to me how you believe the Federal Reserve system works, so that I may deduce where you think this magical ambiguous "interest" comes from.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Skip ahead to 1:12:00.

Bettina wrote:1. Abortion... He is a pro-life extremist.

Yep. A stance I was delighted to finally find in a Libertarian.

Kilarin wrote:Yep. A stance I was delighted to finally find in a Libertarian.

Yep. I'm sure all young school girls share your excitement.

Bee

Blue wrote:

DCrazy wrote:Where is this "interest" you speak of coming from? Explain to me how you believe the Federal Reserve system works, so that I may deduce where you think this magical ambiguous "interest" comes from.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Skip ahead to 1:12:00.

How about you explain to me, in your own words, how you believe the Fed operates. You were so assertive before, now back up your beliefs, rather than point me at some movie.

Thats where I'm getting my information (well that and wikipedia)...did you watch that section?

I am not asking you where you got your information. I am asking you to explain to me in your own words how you believe the Federal Reserve System works. Instead you are dodging that question because I think you realize that you don't really know.

And that's why I didn't watch the movie you pointed me at.

DCrazy wrote:I am not asking you where you got your information. I am asking you to explain to me in your own words how you believe the Federal Reserve System works. Instead you are dodging that question because I think you realize that you don't really know.

And that's why I didn't watch the movie you pointed me at.

You're being aggressively argumentative, needlessly if I might add. I already explained in my own words how I believe it works. It was the first thing i posted. Where i got my information from was the second, as you asked me to "back it up".

If I'm wrong, explain and post your sources.

I think out of everyone running, Ron Paul dosnt sound like he's just regurgitating scare tactics. He actually says facts and tells you exactly how he's going to fix them. He talks about the national dept and social security like math problems not the apocalypses.

Im against pro life (to hell with the living!) and im all for stemcell research (play ping pong with the dumb things for all i care). But those two things are second priority to fixing the country and i seriously believe he's the only one that can really do the job. I'm sure the other candidates could also do a good job but i just cant find any info talking about anything real other than the same dam regular candidate blab.

Bet51987 wrote:
4. Human Rights... He would not interfere with genocide occuring in foreign countries. He would not have put an end to the oppression of women in afghanistan.
Bettina

Not to burst your bubble but no one went in to Afghanistan to end the repression of women.

Isaac wrote:I think out of everyone running, Ron Paul dosnt sound like he's just regurgitating scare tactics. He actually says facts and tells you exactly how he's going to fix them. He talks about the national dept and social security like math problems not the apocalypses.

Yes, these are similar to the reasons I want him to win. I disagree with alot of his opinions, but the man is smart.

Bush has taught me alot about what I want in a president. He has taught me that item by item issues are not all that important in who I want to win. Looking at Bush, I opposed his Social security plan, and supported his imigration plan....and where are we after his Presidency? Where we started.

I care more about the face that the president gives the nation.

Reguarding the federal reserve, I've not seriously studied it, but what he says on the issue makes sence:

woodchip wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:
4. Human Rights... He would not interfere with genocide occuring in foreign countries. He would not have put an end to the oppression of women in afghanistan.
Bettina

Not to burst your bubble but no one went in to Afghanistan to end the repression of women.

I never said we did.

Ron Paul is not a humanitarian. He would have invaded just enough to get those who supported Osama and then left the women to fend for themselves.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

Ron Paul is not a humanitarian. He would have invaded just enough to get those who supported Osama and then left the women to fend for themselves.

Bee

More specificly he's said he would do exactly what congress (and i guess NATO too) would have said at the time.

So im not sure if he would have done that or not. Can't remember.

I like Ron Paul as a congressman, but wouldn't trust him as president. He's got a lot of good ideas, but a lot of batty ideas too.

Lothar wrote:I like Ron Paul as a congressman, but wouldn't trust him as president. He's got a lot of good ideas, but a lot of batty ideas too.

give some examples plz!

Lothar wrote:I like Ron Paul as a congressman, but wouldn't trust him as president. He's got a lot of good ideas, but a lot of batty ideas too.

I'd say we've seen enough batty ideas coming from people who won the presidency; From BOTH parties; to make Ron Paul's views seem quite tame by comparison.

Blue wrote:You're being aggressively argumentative, needlessly if I might add. I already explained in my own words how I believe it works. It was the first thing i posted. Where i got my information from was the second, as you asked me to "back it up".

If I'm wrong, explain and post your sources.

I wouldn't call it needless. I'm calling you out in misrepresentation of fact. Or at least an oversimplification that virtually all "libertarians" are subject to, especially those who idolize Ron Paul and his desire to abolish the Fed and return to the gold standard.

Ron Paul and his ilk (the folks at the Mises Institute, for example) love to complain about the cult of personality that surrounded Greenspan and how he supposedly sent our country's economy down the shitter. Right now, Ron Paul is nothing but a cult of Internet personality. His name is plastered all over the Internet, yet he enjoys no widespread public support, which his fans attribute to some sort of mass-media conspiracy against him.

And that's my problem with "libertarians." Everything seems to boil down to a conspiracy, the biggest of which is the supposed Federal Reserve Conspiracy. Every argument I've seen, from the nutjob blogger to Lew Rockwell, straddles the "Zionist banker conspiracy" line.

From this central core of paranoia comes the idea that the Federal Reserve's sole purpose of existence is to steal money from Hardworking Libertarian Americans(TM) and put it in the pockets of Evil Rich (Sometimes Zionist) Bankers, and that fractional-reserve banking is the foundation of the whole scheme. The easiest way to explain this plot is to use the complicated nature of monetary policy to induce confusion and increase the listener's propensity to believe that there is some vast mechination at work to fleece him from his dollar. The antidote? The mythical, revered gold standard. Who needs all this economics mumbo-jumbo is we peg the dollar value to the value of gold and let The Market decide?

In order to incite this debate, they tackle each layer of complexity in the monetary system on its own. They segment out fractional-reserve banking, and through some handwaving "prove" that it is a failure. With that argument under their belts, they believe they have sufficient rational basis to take down the entire Federal Reserve system. The one item that most effectively destroys their argument is the interplay between the layers of the economy. But the arguments have a built-in defense: The Market, which when it suits the libertarian encompasses the entire world, but when it does not is restricted to local groups of buyers and sellers who have full access to accurate information (the ideal market).

Given how much of this intellectual dishonesty I have witnessed on the Internet, including in videos such as the one you posted (or the ones from the Mises Institute, which I have actually watched at the behest of some of my real-world friends), I am skeptical of anyone who claims to have proof that "it's all a scam", especially the kind who back up their arguments with YouTube videos and Wikipedia articles. This is why I'm asking you to explain your version of the economy so that we may both take a critical look at your model and perhaps expose some fallacies in your thinking, or God forbid mine.

DCrazy wrote:And that's my problem with "libertarians." Everything seems to boil down to a conspiracy, the biggest of which is the supposed Federal Reserve Conspiracy.

It is, admittedly, a very common issue among libertarians.
I am not exactly enthusiastic about the Fed Reserve, but I don't think it's evil incarnate.
The IRS on the other hand...

I was always amazed at the level of detail you put into your Descent3 levels, your posts are similar.

<3 Sky

Yea no offence DCrazy, but you're too hot blooded to debate with on this. I never enter a debate if the other person is holding a gun.

Skyalmian wrote:

Ron Paul on GoogleTrends wrote:This is better than national polls. It's a poll of everyone on the planet with an internet connection:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/a ... ds0707.gif

h/t Inside Google

A reader points out that I left off someone named "Fred Thompson." Is he running for something? Anyway, here he is. Thanks, Chris.

Several people have pointed out the one place in the world where Fred Thompson is more searched than Ron Paul. Mark says, "Look at the Rating by city on the second link you provided. Should we be shocked at the one city where Fred Thompson runs ahead of Ron.

The numbers within the numbers tell us just how out of touch our Federal Government is."

And this tells us.... what? That Hilary happens to be in the news more often than somebody else? That Ron Paul is so much an "unknown" that people have to do a web search to find out anything about him (pro or con)?

Come on, don't try to make an answer where an answer doesn't exist. Numbers on who is searched for on the web do not the candidate make. It only means either 1) they managed to get more attention, or 2) people had to search in order to find out anything about them.

The Google Trends mean nothing about what the candidate stands for, or would do if in office.

Dakatsu wrote:Ron Paul is decent, Kucinich is decent as well. All the other ones just plain suck. I really don't like Mitt Romney, and Hillary seems too much as all she cares about is being elected. None of them seem as bad as Bush (except mabye Romney), but still. I'm glad I can't vote until 2011, becuase I think I'd just plain old stab everyone in the voting area in fustration.

When you finally can vote... your going to be met by dudes in black suits and ear pieces now that you made that comment

Sky, Thank you for the information you posted.
I found it enlightening and enjoyable.

I would be happy to discuss with you our currency, the FR, the gold standard, etc..

We went through this before and you very respectfully(and admirably) ended the conversation. Something like: \"I am just a student, but I do like Economics.. This is the point were I have to stop because I'm not fully confident\" ..
You seem far more confident now.. what changed?

Might be a good conversation.. you never know.

If I was in politics, I would so run as a fringe candidate for a party nomination. Ron Paul and Mike Gravel have this really amusing position of being the counterpoint to all of the slick and programmed politicians who will invariably grab the nomination.

Just look at any of the televised debates. They sit on the far edge - away from the Clintons and Obamas, Giulianis and Romneys - and blast the system with every rare opportunity they have to answer.

It's the only real thing about these debates. These people are really speaking their minds, for better or worse. If only more people did that in Washington, rather than towing the party line like lemmings off a cliff.