The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Is there anything *wrong* with Ron Paul?
JamesKeenan
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Now, I'm obviously assuming you're a more traditional American in the "I believe in the constitution and its intentions" kind. If all you want is complete anarchy, or some religious police state, than there's a lot wrong with Ron Paul to you, I imagine.
But I'm pretty serious here. In regards to the American ideal, is he the... the prefect candidate? Just typing it out seems silly and overly laudatory, but the more I think about it, the more I believe it, and that's dangerous. I need outside perspective. Maybe he's a young earth creationist. That'd be pretty bad.
He votes what he says, and what he says is not only good, it's also exactly the intent of the founders. And the founders weren't prophets, but they were the men responsible for founding an entirely new fucking nation. And the ideals and intentions behind the creation of the constitution was the result of thousands of years of western philosophy.
And Ron Paul lives by this, and would govern by it. Is there anything really wrong with him?
But I'm pretty serious here. In regards to the American ideal, is he the... the prefect candidate? Just typing it out seems silly and overly laudatory, but the more I think about it, the more I believe it, and that's dangerous. I need outside perspective. Maybe he's a young earth creationist. That'd be pretty bad.
He votes what he says, and what he says is not only good, it's also exactly the intent of the founders. And the founders weren't prophets, but they were the men responsible for founding an entirely new fucking nation. And the ideals and intentions behind the creation of the constitution was the result of thousands of years of western philosophy.
And Ron Paul lives by this, and would govern by it. Is there anything really wrong with him?
JamesKeenan on
0
Posts
Seriously, he's an immigration bigot like most of them. That's my main problem with him. Free economy, my ass.
Oh and he is anti gays in the military despite claiming to be all for liberty and protectings rights (and yes he has a BS excuse for that which is implies that all gays in the military who get fired for being gay were having disruptive gay sex.
I could go on but I think alot of other members here will do a much better job of it.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
He's okay with states banning gay marriage and abortion, which kind of begs the question of libertarianism.
He's an ugly dude, kind of shrill, and has the stage presence of some sort of exasperated blinking reptile.
That seems like a pretty good reason for me. Strict constructionism be damned, the founding fathers never intended the government to be stuck in the late 18th century in perpetuity.
This is just a tribute.
He wants to abolish the IRS, FEMA, The DoE, HomeSec, and the Federal Reserve.
He wants to withdraw from the UN, NATO and the WTO.
He's Anti-Abortion and wants Roe v Wade overturned.
He's Anti Same-Sex Adoption.
He wrote this piece of shit.
He wants to issue Letters of Marque.
He opposes birthright citizenship, in direct contravention of the constitution.
What was right about him, again?
Not that I am saying you are wrong, but could you give me a brief rundown of why the gold standard is madness? I actually thought we were still using it, but obviously I am out of the economic loop here.
That's an automatic "fail" from me.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Seriously? Letters of Marque? Privateers and shit?
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Because it denies a country the economic flexibility it needs in handling its money flow, which in turn causes bank panics and depressions?
Because depressions were a cyclical occurence in the US until we went to fiat, at which point we haven't had one since?
It ties monetary supply to a fixed value even as national assets increase (causing massive nonrepairable long-term deflation) and it eliminates the ability of the government to manage the economy through the money supply. There are also a lot of questions about how it would work in the modern world where every other country regards gold as a commodity.
His theory is that instead of going to war or sending units out to hunt down Bin Laden, we should just get Privateers to do all of that shit instead.
'Cause, like, free market dood.
3 words.
"Walter Reed Hospital"
Talk to any Vet about the VA health system and you'll understand why a lot of people don't want to hand it over to the government.
Margaret Thatcher
Thanks for the answer, thanks to you too AngelHedgie.
So basically, he wants to go back to an old system that caused depressions over and over again and probably couldn't even work in today's globalized economy?
Doesn't sound very smart to me.
The short, kindergarten-level answer (mostly because my understanding of macroeconomics is kindergarten-level):
Healthy economies generate wealth. In real terms, that means that there are more people with more stuff living a higher standard of living today than there were 100, 50, or even 1 year ago.
In a gold standard economy, there can only be as much money circulating as the government has gold in its coffers. If the economy encounters a boom, there is a risk that more wealth could be generated than there is gold to back it up, in which case we risk a monetary crisis.
Beyond that, there's no good reason to have a gold standard.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
certainly because the government is not currently succeeding at something it means that they cannot possibly succeed...
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
It also makes the economy vulnerable to anyone who is willing to flood the market with their gold.
I don't think we want to get into this here. I'd be happy to take it to a new thread.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It isn't. But since it's built around gold, it appeals to libertarians who have issues with abstract concepts.
Yeah, exactly. Libertarians want to believe in absolute property rights, separate and independent from the sovereignty of any particular government. Therefore, they want their money to be worth a concrete, fixed amount of a valuable good. The notion that their money is only worth something because the government says it does is anathema to their ideas on property rights. (You can see this line of reasoning at work on Ron Paul's official position statement on the gold standard.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
...holy shit. Does he actually believe that? Not just postering, "wrangle up some voter affection" crap? Because that's absolutely horrible. I mean, the stupid law itself will be rendered unconstitutional by any remotely sane court, but I haven't seen a total lack of understanding on the basic laws of checks and balance in the federal law this side of the Bush Administration.
Luckily, he also holds the opposite positions to all of that, and many positions in-between, if he agrees with all of the Founders.
At it's most abstract, they don't like a fiat currency because it's only valuable because people think of it as valuable, and therefore want it. It doesn't have an intrinsic valuableness in a vacuum without that belief.
Neither does gold, but goldbugs never seem to realize that part.
Also, I'd like to imagine that we've learned a few things since our founding fathers and have improved vastly on what they laid out.
Gold is only valuable because of a completely unreasoned belief that unusable yellow crud you dig out of the ground is actually valuable. At least there is some rationale behind believing in the value of the US dollar.
Sweet! Well, except the Fed. That's ignorant.
Sweet.
Meh.
I'm ok with that, but what a waste of time.
tl;dr
He writes letter to who now?
Man that's funny. It would require one hell of a grandfather clause.
I'm finding myself really not liking him now.
Ron Paul on O'Reilley's show. Fair and balanced.
Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilley....
How can that not be hilarious?
Also, What the Fuck, Yar?
the whole thing where anyone born here becomes a citizen regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
I believe.
Actually, as far as I remember, Gold is an excellent conductor, and very useful in electronics.
Silicon is extremely useful too, but no one proposes basing our currency on sand.