An Orchestrated Attempt to Smear Ron Paul Through Slander and Mud Slinging - My Two Cents.

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

58 posts / 0 new

Hello everyone,

I support Ron Paul because for any faults he might have, on the central issues of our time he is both precient and absolutely correct on the necessary reforms we need to push through to turn this country around before a monetary collapse. He is also a far better choice than Romney, Gingrich or Obama. Now, of course the Republican establishment hates him with a passion. And given that he is going to win in Iowa and he is going up dramatically in all polls while Gingrich and Romney are falling, many are in full blown panic mode, doing everything possible to discredit him and destroy him politically. The one trump card they have known about for a while is the so-called racist newsletters that were written under his name in the 80s and early 90s. What the media is attempting to do now is flood the news networks with reports and suggestions that he is a racist in order to scare away potential supporters. Many people will take what they read as fact without looking into the story any or getting any explanation. As long as a certain percentage are discouraged from supporting him, they can keep him from the nomination. Whether or not the story has any merit, the way it is USED is the height of journalistic misconduct and character assassination.

To this day, almost every time I get into an argument online about Ron Paul, someone naturally resorts to calling him a racist when they are unable to discredit his views on economics or knock his consistency or integrity. Other times I hear that someone new to Ron Paul asking whether he is a racist due to things they have read (usually a smear attempt) that incorrectly attributes quotes as if they were written and spoken by Dr Paul himself.

I know many here are not libertarians. That is fine and I can respect that. However, I doubt any honest person could claim that Ron Paul is a racist. The truth about these newsletters is that Ron Paul lent his name to people who actually wrote the letters, like a publisher. People were hired and fired that he never met. Anyone who is familiar with the practice of ghostwriting or have ever been involved with a large organization in the role of a publisher would know how easy it can be for others to express views that you don't hold.

Ron Paul served two separate terms in Congress. One started in the 1970s. He retired from Congress in 1984. He went back to medical practice full time. He did run as the Libertarian party nominee in 1988 but other than that he was not involved in politics until he ran again in 1996. During the 1980s he was relatively unknown and he did not expect to get back into politics again. There were a few organizations he was involved in that were made up of paleo conservative and libertarian groups that were trying to build the movement. Ron Paul had spoken to everyone and he freely allowed his name to be leant to a few different groups who wanted to use his modest name recognition among target groups to spread what they viewed as similar viewpoints. The newsletters in question were produced entirely without involvement from Ron Paul. In fact, Ron Paul was a full time OBGYN at the time, which means work weeks of 50 to 60 hours were common.

Now, we have all seen the quotes that have been put forth over and over again by the media. Many of them are quite offensive. Some are actually not racist, but rather are non politically correct and taken out of context. Regardless of this, they are wrong and Ron Paul has disavowed all these statements and has issued a detailed explanation that these are not his words nor thoughts.

Ron Paul is a libertarian who has always been confident in his own views. He is also someone who respects the sovereignty of other individuals and is not one to tell other people what to do. That is why he has always been willing to talk with people who might not agree with him or who he may disagree with strongly on certain issues. He talks with Alex Jones frequently, although he is not a 9/11 Truther.

During the late 80s and early 90s, elements of the "paleoconservative" movement were trying to gain support and votes through any means necessary. During the heightened tension between the races during that period of gangster rap, the crack epidemic, gang violence and the LA riots, some turned to cynical pandering and race baiting tactics to win over support. Some of this crept into the Ron Paul newsletters.

But anyone who knows Ron Paul knows that the language and wording of all these offensive phrases cannot be attributable to Ron Paul due to the drastic differences in style. Listen to Ron Paul speak. He always speaks about his philosophy and the ideas of individual liberty and the constitution. He NEVER goes after people personally. Nobody has ever heard Ron Paul talk about anyone in terms of groups. He has made this distinction clear many times in the past.

Now, I do believe that people should be given an explanation. Ron Paul has given a detailed explanation that he was unaware of these writings and disavows everything that was written. He has explained this repeatedly. But the veiled charge that he is a racist goes too far.

There is no evidence to support that. The problem is not an honest journalist asking a question about this. The problem is waiting until Ron Paul becomes a "threat" and then playing this story over and over again and attributing the most offensive quotes they could find from a decade of newsletters as if they came out of Ron Paul's mouth. That is character assassination and is not honest journalism.

How could a libertarian be a racist? Racism implies that you believe in collective rights or collective identities. If a person relies believes in individual rights and liberties, they cannot be a racist because everyone is an individual to be judged by their character and actions, not by a collective label (black, gay, catholic, jew, etc).

So, I am asking the fine people in this forum if they are with me in saying that the media is out of line to suggest that Ron Paul is a racist. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with Ron Paul, but can't we agree that whether or not people support him should be based on what you think of his ideas on the economy? Or his ideas about civil liberties or foreign policy?

If a journalist asks an honest question about the newsletters and gets an honest answer, fine. Then they should move on and report on his views on what we should do about the economy and unemployment. Then they should talk about what he believes we should do about reforming government or auditing the federal reserve. What they are doing is asking this question over and over again, getting the same answer and goading people into asking "Is Ron Paul a closet racist?" while ignoring the important questions on his policy ideas. This does a great disservice to voters who want to elect someone who will fix the economy. They are only going to hear slander and baseless assertions until after the first several primaries are over (or if he does well, maybe not after that).

Can we agree this is unfounded and horrible journalism? And is it really so hard to see how some offensive passages could get into a newsletter that Paul was simply a publisher for but had no direct imput on content?

Not only that, but his actions his entire life have contradicted racism and bigotry. One of his primary complaints about the war on drugs and the death penalty is the unfair and disproportionate sentancing of minorities. He has long railed against the criminal justice system for being run in a racist and discriminatory way. The economic collapse he has long warned about has disproportionately affected african americans and he wants to fix this system. There are a long list of Federal policies and regulations that have kept poor blacks from having access to the American dream. Ron Paul is working to fix them so that everyone can work their way up in society. Ron Paul has condemned police brutality and misconduct.

His policies would do more to help minorities than any other candidate and even president Obama. Can we just accept that this is a smear that is being used to try and keep Ron Paul from the nomination?

In fact, NAACP President Nelson Linder has come to Ron Paul's defense and he has known Paul for over twenty years: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11137575-naacp-leader-nelson-linder-ron-paul-is-not-a-racist

In medical practice, Ron Paul on principle didn't accept Medicare or Medicade. He treated poor minorities for free during his entire time being a doctor. For decades he has made the claim that Martin Luther King, Jr and Rosa Parks are heroes of his for their practice of the libertarian principle of civil disobedience. He has long praised those who put themselves in danger of arrest or even death in order to end immoral laws or government practices. He has always done this.

This is what Ron Paul has said on the subject of racism:

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.

Who's with me? Do you agree that this story should not be brought up over and over? Can you not think it coceivable that a man retired from politics, working 50 to 60 hours a week in private practice, with no plans to return to politics could have been unaware of what ghostwriters were writing under his name?

Please leave feedback. But please be intelligent and respectful.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am

Comments

So he made over a million dollars on newsletters baring his name, many/most written in the first person, and what...he didn't even read them and approve what was being sent out as if he wrote it? The illusion presented to the subscribers was that he was the author. He made over a million and didn't even read it? That's almost worse than the content.

and consistentcy doesn't make one right, just consistent (which of course is unusual in this day).

TampaCT's picture
TampaCT
Joined:
Aug. 4, 2011 5:52 am

I do find it intersting how much Paul seems to make the republican party insiders and the mainstream press squirm.

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 7:36 am

Actually, I wish the Dems would adopt Ron Paul's ideas on foreign policy and civil liberties.

His economic ideology,however, is a disaster. What worked in pre-industrial America and pre-financialization of America doesn't work in a corporate economic system.

It works really well when the majority are self-employed farmers, shop keepers and craftsmen...and "big business" is merely a pipe dream. That's no longer the case.

In 1776, he'd have been a pretty good candidate.

Retired Monk -"Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The only people that don't make mistakes are the ones that never do anything.

Question for Thom: Have you read everything that comes out under Democracy Now and Free Speech TV letterhead?

Challenge to the Media: Dr. Ron Paul has been in politics for 30+ years find me one video clip of his racist rants!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2onsmjElaU

I used really enjoy your show. But, after these comments on Ron Paul. I don't know if I will ever watch it again.

Listen to the "boots on the ground" and vote Dr. Ron Paul for CaC 2012.

Vet, Grandfather, and life long Democrat for Dr. Ron Paul 2012

Mack Johnson
Joined:
Dec. 22, 2011 11:20 am
Quote jrodefeld:And given that he is going to win in Iowa...

Riiiight. The plutocrats aren't going to allow someone with his foreign policy views (as poly says, his other views spell disaster) to garner the kind of attention that would result from Paul winning in Iowa.

It'll be neoliberal vs. neoliberal, probably Obama vs. Romney. The 'horse race' will dominate the news for a year, and the victory will go to...drumroll please...the neoliberal. Probably the one who will do the best job of keeping the protesters at bay. You know, the guy who won the marketing award: http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 8:20 am

If I may add my own two cents... While I am not inclined to believe that Ron Paul is overtly racist there is no doubt but that the original libertarian base (the base that existed before Ron Paul was able to expand it by taking some popular positions) is a frightening crowd. What you find there are the kind of right-wing survivalist extremists who arm themselves in anticipation of the necessity of insurrection. Frankly put, Dr. Paul is the polite face on the shit storm that created the likes of Tim McVeigh. Of course I wouldn't associate the intentions of Dr. Paul with those of Tim McVeigh but the fact remains that Dr. Paul's ideology is born out of the same extremist World view.

As to racism there is definitely a symbiotic relationship between Dr. Paul's libertarian politics and the modern "Constitution Party". Dr. Paul has endorsed Constitution Party candidates and the Constitution Party undeniably has roots associated with white supremacy and white supremicists. It absorbed the "American Independant Party", for instance, which was founded to support George Wallace's run for president and there is no question but that Wallace was a racist. There is also an association between the politics of Dr. Paul and groups still fighting the Civil War and who want to see an independant country comprised of the former Confederacy.

What these various groups all have in common is the deeply held conviction that State's Rights are paramount and typically that is only a thinly veiled manner of stating one's belief that there is a constitutional right to segregate. So, even though I have not seen what these newsletters contain nor do I know what association Dr. Paul has with the newsletter in question it is no surprise to me that Dr, Paul is faced with questions about racism. There is an old saying: "If you lie with dogs you're going to get fleas."

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm

I wonder why Ron Paul has been completely ignored by the media until recently. Could it be both liberals and conservatives are worried about him winning? I came upon Ron Paul late in the 2008 campaign. Since then, I have become far more libertarian in my views. Do we need to be the watchdog of the world? Do we need
the federal government to pick winners and losers?

We do not have a free market. If we did, the five banks that control our economy would be gone. Ford would be ruling Detroit. Ron Paul is honest and knowledgeable. Keynesian economics has not worked and will not work in the current economy because we have too much debt. I think he is the real change that we can believe will put our country back on track.

SaltoftheEarth
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2011 5:01 pm
Quote TampaCT:

So he made over a million dollars on newsletters baring his name, many/most written in the first person, and what...he didn't even read them and approve what was being sent out as if he wrote it? The illusion presented to the subscribers was that he was the author. He made over a million and didn't even read it? That's almost worse than the content.

and consistentcy doesn't make one right, just consistent (which of course is unusual in this day).

The reports stating that he made millions on these newsletters are completely untrue. Your comments here suggest you know very little about what happens with ghostwriters and publishers. The idea that some articles were written in the first person therefore were written by Dr Paul is ludicrous.

Another important point is that the number of offensive sentances in the newsletters have been grossly exaggerated. Even if Dr Paul read one of the newsletters once and a while (not that he had much spare time) he would likely have never encountered any of the offensive phrases that are being played over and over in certain media outlets.

What you are missing is that if you want to make the assertion that Dr Paul wrote or endorsed the views that were expressed in these newsletters (the offensive passages), then you should be able to find something that Dr Paul said in his years of writings, house speeches, bills he has introduced, voting record, or dozens of books he has authored to support these claims. Nothing that has ever been directly attributable to Ron Paul has sounded remotely like the words that ended up in these newsletters.

Given that Ron Paul is notorious for taking stands that are unpopular and he is as blunt at speaking his mind as they come, it would be shocking if he could manage to secretly believe in what is said in these newsletters but not ever speak in such a manner in his books or writings. Not to mention the fact that he was very little known until the last decade or so. A racist would not be able to hide his views for so long.

Now, you can justifiably criticize Ron Paul for lacking judgment in not paying closer attention to what was being published under his name. He has admitted his mistake in not providing greater oversight during that period. But you must put things into context. Barack Obama was associated with Reverend Wright for decades and we know all the controverial statements that he made. The associations that other candidates have are far worse than those of Ron Paul.

I think it is worthwhile to read this post by Tom Woods on the subject:

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-ron-paul-newsletters/

I hope you read this short link. In case you don't, I want to highlight a few paragraphs that sum up my feeling on this subject:

"Jamie Kirchick wonders why libertarians “don’t care” about the newsletters. I don’t think it’s right to say they don’t care. Their view is that the offending sentences, of which there are far fewer than critics are intimating, sound absolutely nothing like Ron Paul (can anyone seriously dispute that?), and they are convinced, with good reason, that the kindly man they see in the debates, in interviews and in person is who he really is.

They also believe that our political class is full of people — we may justly call them sociopaths — whose words may always be exquisitely correct, never once straying from proper p.c. decorum, but who think absolutely nothing of (say) bombing foreign populations on the most ludicrous and transparent grounds. Our society banishes those who make insensitive remarks, but considers our knee-jerk bombardiers to be people with a legitimate point of view, and certainly as having done nothing that might end a person’s career.

...........

Our country’s political class is full of people who believed it morally acceptable, after 1991, to deprive the Iraqi population of baby food, blood-analysis equipment for children’s hospitals, heaters, syringes, ambulance equipment, insecticide, children’s clothes, school notebooks, bicycles, etc. (I’ll leave aside the so-called conservatives who for some reason think it must be “liberal” to find something wrong with this.)

Now the people responsible for so inhumane and indefensible a policy will utter every p.c. platitude in the world. Every word will be exquisitely proper. Our society thus considers them to be citizens in good standing.

This is what Ron Paul supporters, who are standing by him, are responding to. Insensitive remarks, which not even his worst critic thinks he actually wrote, can scarcely be morally worse than policies like these, which enjoy the active support of practically the entire spectrum of the U.S. political class."

Basically, we have a president who thinks nothing of murdering thousands and thousands of brown people in third world countries, assassinating American citizens without a trial and locking up millions of our fellow Americans and throwing them into cages for using drugs. And that is perfectly acceptible for the media. We have other Republican candidates who are allowed to be openly bigoted against Muslims and Latinos every single day and there is no controversy. Yet, when the one candidate who finds fault with these inhumane policies starts to gain ground with the electorate, a two decades old newsletter with very low circulation contains a few offensive phrases that no one believes Ron Paul actually wrote, THAT disqualifies him from office. All the far greater offenses purpetrated by our government on a routine basis are perfectly acceptible of course.

That is quite the height of hypocrisy.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote Semi permeable memebrain:

I do find it intersting how much Paul seems to make the republican party insiders and the mainstream press squirm.

I find it interesting as well. In fact, one of the greatest joys that I have as a Paul supporter is to see warmongers and neocons like Sean Hannity, Bill Oreilly and Rush Limbaugh squirm and throw hissy fits as the Ron Paul Revolution takes over local precincts and starts to gain control of the grassroots political system in this country. And, seriously, don't you think that anyone who makes these despicable talking heads this unfomfortable and panicked must be doing something right?

He's telling an aweful lot of truths that Republicans don't want to hear. And he is gaining ground with the Republican base, not to mention bringing in Independents and Democrats. They cannot dismiss what he is saying by suggesting that he is a "far left" lunatic. He is exposing how they have sold out there own principles. He is reminding voters of what the Old Right, decent conservatives used to believe. They can't stand this because they have worked for several decades to redefine conservatism to mean something radical and authoritarian.

Their desperation and panic has not reached its pinacle yet. Wait until Ron Paul wins Iowa in a landslide and he is the legit frontrunner. No matter what your opinion of Paul is, that spectacle will be something to witness.

This dynamic is another reason why any thinking person should generally disregard these attempts at character assassination because we know why party insiders want to keep him from power. Honest journalists wouldn't stoop to this level.

Alas, journalism isn't what it used to be.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote polycarp2:

Actually, I wish the Dems would adopt Ron Paul's ideas on foreign policy and civil liberties.

His economic ideology,however, is a disaster. What worked in pre-industrial America and pre-financialization of America doesn't work in a corporate economic system.

It works really well when the majority are self-employed farmers, shop keepers and craftsmen...and "big business" is merely a pipe dream. That's no longer the case.

In 1776, he'd have been a pretty good candidate.

Retired Monk -"Ideology is a disease".

Well, I appreciate your admiration of some of Paul's policies. I find it interesting that those on the "left" tend to really like his foreign policy and his views on civil liberties and maybe his criticisms of the Federal Reserve. But they don't like his economics. Many on the "right" tend to like his economics but they hate his views against war and his opposition to the patriot act and corporate welfare.

What everyone needs to understand is that liberty is a consistent ideology that cannot be broken apart. How can one believe in personal liberty, but not economic liberty? Why can a thoughtful person oppose aggression abroad but support it domestically?

I think what you don't understand is that modern corporations and business power is due to decades of lobbying government to grow and increase regulations to benefit certain interests. The idea that government needs to be large today to protect against "corporate power" is completely wrongheaded and mischaracterizes the problem. Under Ron Paul's economic system, business and corporate power would be reduced as well. It is the consumer, the individual that would be empowered to determine the direction our economy goes. Entrepreneurs would be rewarded. The Fed's "discount window" would be closed forever and business would have to work under much more strict rules and be subject to market discipline.

Am I correct in believing that you oppose Ron Paul's economics because you think that corporate power is too great today? If that is the case, why don't you ask yourself what policies allowed wealth to become concentrated in so few hands?

Imagine this: Suppose three years ago we allowed all the banks to fail. We cut all corporate welfare and disbanded the Fed. All the secret deals and special benefits the crony capitalists were receiving were cut off. All these powerful corporations were allowed to fail or were broken up. Then we changed the economic system to reduce regulations and taxes to empower individuals to start their own businesses from the ground up with no excessive restrictions from the government. The "bad guys" would lose their power and lose their money and influence in government. Crony capitalism would be replaced by free market entrepreneurship.

The outcome of such a policy would be far better than to prop up the criminals, not allow debt to be liquidated and maintain the status quo at all costs. Government policy has put these corporate interests in power. Their power is artificial. They don't have wealth due to market preference, they gained it through lobbying and playing the fiat money system like a casino, dealing derivatives and not pressured by any normal market demands or competition.

I think Ron Paul's policy is to remove this economic system and the laws and regulations that have propped up the oligarchs and replace it with a more fair system where the government doesn't pick winners and losers.

What exactly do you find objectionable about that?

You say that what worked in pre-industrial America doesn't work in a corporate economic system. How do you know that? His economic ideas of Sound Money and free markets haven't been tried in many decades. And, given the crisis that we are in, isn't it also obvious that the economic system we have been living with hasn't worked either?

What economic system do YOU think works in todays society?

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote Mack Johnson:

The only people that don't make mistakes are the ones that never do anything.

Question for Thom: Have you read everything that comes out under Democracy Now and Free Speech TV letterhead?

Challenge to the Media: Dr. Ron Paul has been in politics for 30+ years find me one video clip of his racist rants!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2onsmjElaU

I used really enjoy your show. But, after these comments on Ron Paul. I don't know if I will ever watch it again.

Listen to the "boots on the ground" and vote Dr. Ron Paul for CaC 2012.

Vet, Grandfather, and life long Democrat for Dr. Ron Paul 2012

Right on. I appreciate your support for Dr Paul. Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Conservatives, everyone should support this man for president of the United States.

The craziest thing about these desperate attacks is that Ron Paul's actual platform and policies are the most non-racist of any politician that has been in government in serveral generations.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote Garrett78:
Quote jrodefeld:And given that he is going to win in Iowa...

Riiiight. The plutocrats aren't going to allow someone with his foreign policy views (as poly says, his other views spell disaster) to garner the kind of attention that would result from Paul winning in Iowa.

It'll be neoliberal vs. neoliberal, probably Obama vs. Romney. The 'horse race' will dominate the news for a year, and the victory will go to...drumroll please...the neoliberal. Probably the one who will do the best job of keeping the protesters at bay. You know, the guy who won the marketing award: http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/

Have you been following the news at all? Ron Paul is leading in every poll in Iowa right now. Even mainstream news outlets are predicting he will win Iowa. Every reporter who has been to that state in the last month has marvelled and the grassroots enthusiasm and support that Paul has there. He has been hitting the airwaves with millions of dollars worth of televison ads. He IS the favorite to win there. It is getting pretty close to a sure thing at this point.

I agree with you that they will do everything conceivable to hurt Ron Paul and getting him to win the nomination is a long shot and will be difficult but he WILL win in Iowa and will probably get second in New Hampshire. Due to proportional delegates and his continued successful fundraising he could get enough support to lead to a brokered convention and he will have a ton of leverage.

Republicans know that his supporters will NOT support any other Republican. They will have to deal with him continually throughout this process.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote mdhess:

If I may add my own two cents... While I am not inclined to believe that Ron Paul is overtly racist there is no doubt but that the original libertarian base (the base that existed before Ron Paul was able to expand it by taking some popular positions) is a frightening crowd. What you find there are the kind of right-wing survivalist extremists who arm themselves in anticipation of the necessity of insurrection. Frankly put, Dr. Paul is the polite face on the shit storm that created the likes of Tim McVeigh. Of course I wouldn't associate the intentions of Dr. Paul with those of Tim McVeigh but the fact remains that Dr. Paul's ideology is born out of the same extremist World view.

As to racism there is definitely a symbiotic relationship between Dr. Paul's libertarian politics and the modern "Constitution Party". Dr. Paul has endorsed Constitution Party candidates and the Constitution Party undeniably has roots associated with white supremacy and white supremicists. It absorbed the "American Independant Party", for instance, which was founded to support George Wallace's run for president and there is no question but that Wallace was a racist. There is also an association between the politics of Dr. Paul and groups still fighting the Civil War and who want to see an independant country comprised of the former Confederacy.

What these various groups all have in common is the deeply held conviction that State's Rights are paramount and typically that is only a thinly veiled manner of stating one's belief that there is a constitutional right to segregate. So, even though I have not seen what these newsletters contain nor do I know what association Dr. Paul has with the newsletter in question it is no surprise to me that Dr, Paul is faced with questions about racism. There is an old saying: "If you lie with dogs you're going to get fleas."

You are making a lot of assumptions that are very off base. Libertarians have always been a large group of people with various factions that support different groups and different ideas. And they frequently fight among themselves and disagree vigorously. What you are referring to are the "militia" groups and other antigovernment groups that I don't even think would consider themselves libertarians. Would someone like Ron Paul appeal to some of them? Probably. But libertarians are also individuals who are very urban and are motivated by a New Age belief in non violence and legalizing drugs. You might think that a person who is more conspiracy minded and keeps a large stock of food in case of an emergency is a little crazy. But is that person not entitled to believe what he wants as long as he is not hurting someone else? His belief in wanting to be left alone is not fundamentally different from someone who wants to be able to smoke a joint without going to jail.

I think your assumptions about libertarians prior to the last decade are completely misleading and not at all accurate. And bringing up Tim McVeigh to somehow show that anyone criticizing the government is the cause of a lone nut who blows up government buildings is ridiculous and outrageous. You should know better.

As far as the Constitution Party, Ron Paul does NOT have a very close relationship with them. In fact, Ron Paul endorsed ONE candidate for the Constitution Party, in 2008. Whatever you think their "roots" are, you cannot associate them with Ron Paul.

You also are seriously mistaken when you assume that anyone who believes in States Rights is a racist. This is ridiculous. If you study history you will find that principles of States Rights and Nullification have been used more frequently to combat racism and protect the rights of the people than to oppress people. This fantasy that some have that all these groups favor states rights because they really want to reinstate slavery or segregation is absolutely ridiculous. The Federal Government tramples on our rights in so many ways and recognizes no limits on its power. It routinely circumvents the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

From my perspective, and Ron Paul's, we simply ask "Is there some tool or mechanism that can protect the people in the event that the Federal Government abuses their rights?". Having a more equitable balance between states rights and federal authority is one way to ensure that peoples rights are better protected. Is that so extreme? For example, I hope California continues to nullify and ignore the Federal government who insists on raiding medical marijuana dispensaries dispite the people that are being helped.

The canard that "states rights = racism" is offensive and you should be ashamed to use this tactic. Any cursory examination of history would show you that the principles of nullification and states rights have been used so many times to reject gross violations of individual liberty and personal dignity. Before gross violations of rights can be ending throughout society, it is usually a state or a court or a judge that stands up and says "no, we will not stand for this". Their act of defiance eventually leads to Federal recognition and a change in the law and society in general. This happened in the fight to end slavery and segregation and all manner of abusive practices. The Federal Government is not the last word on the Constitution and the rights of the people. The buck stops with the people who are tasked with standing up for their rights if they are being violated.

Do you really have an issue with this?

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote SaltoftheEarth:I wonder why Ron Paul has been completely ignored by the media until recently. Could it be both liberals and conservatives are worried about him winning? I came upon Ron Paul late in the 2008 campaign. Since then, I have become far more libertarian in my views. Do we need to be the watchdog of the world? Do we need the federal government to pick winners and losers? We do not have a free market. If we did, the five banks that control our economy would be gone. Ford would be ruling Detroit. Ron Paul is honest and knowledgeable. Keynesian economics has not worked and will not work in the current economy because we have too much debt. I think he is the real change that we can believe will put our country back on track.

Thanks for the input. I think everything you said is correct. I am happy to see so many being persuaded by the consistency and vital necessity of the libertarian ideology as espoused by Ron Paul.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am

Salt of the earth wrote: Keynesian economics has not worked and will not work in the current economy because we have too much debt. I think he is the real change that we can believe will put our country back on track.

poly replies

1. Keynesian economics hasn't been applied. The employer of last resort still has the "No Help Wanted" sign out. Government is still taxing the economy to feed finance rather than taxing finance to feed the economy,.

2. It wouldn't work in the same manner FDR utilized it. The economy has been outsourced. it would need a new economic engine. Soros suggested green technologies.

3.. When there is idle productive capacity, governments don't have to borrow money into existence. They can simply spend money into existence to utilize the idle capacity. Maybe instead of shutting down "surplus" auto plants, we could have converted them into producing light rail transit systems instead of WWII tanks and jeeps. Government could have simply spent money into existence to utilize the idle capacity. A "dangerous" precedent for financiers and banksters to swallow.

The U.S. will continue spiraling into decline no matter which major party wins. They are all ideologues.

Ideologies are based upon beliefs. Any resemblance between beliefs and what's actually so are purely coincidental. That's why we call them beliefs rather than truths..

One of the great beliefs they all share in is the "invisible hand of the free market".

"The 'invisible hand' is a myth. A religion". Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate, economics.

Basing the economic policy of a nation on a myth is pretty stupid. Woe is us.

-----------

On another note: Had we allowed the private financial system to collapse, we'd have to replace it with a public one. on the model of the state-owned Bank of N. Dakota. We're not willing to do that If we allowed the private financial system to collapse, then every private and business account in a bank would become insolvent..Every check written would be returned stamped "Insufficient Funds". just as they were in the Great Depression. The FDIC, no government, would have the funds to cover them all.

We'll prop up the private financial system with our last dollar. Literally, that's what it will take.

The global financial system has claims on the entire productive output of the globe. Now its up to governments to give them the money to cover those claims or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Dig deep. Bailing financiers and backing their claims on the globe's entire economic output is going to get expensive.

I find it weird that Marx was the only economist who foresaw this happening. Capitalism cannibalising itself.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Thanks Poly for the economic tap out on this nonsense. I wish to return to the smear on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that has been perpetrated and that allow him to be lifted up to counter really awful stuff on the Right. Rev. Wright is a learned exponent of one of my favorite theological frames, "Black Liberation Theology." It is Black in perspective, but not in exclusion or exaltation. It embraces the principle of God's "preferential option for the poor" in reading Scripture and understanding the world. In other words, it puts power in perspective from the bottom up rather than thinking about it from the top down first.

This is why he is vilified for the perfectly accurate statement that "God Bless America" when America is violating the morals of peace and justice with wilfull abandon will bring God's Judgement. This is a totally accurate biblical formula from the prophets, and Mr. Wright's preaching is an excellent example of courageous religious leadership and service when the rest of the Mainline church was asleep and silent on the sins of Empire.

To compare racism, sexism, homophobia and "God Loves America" with a man who led an integrated congregation involved in urban ministry and reconcilliation is really ugly. This lie has come to you courtesy of FAUX, but with a lot of help from the Lamestream and even more ignorance from all concerned. Politically, I guess Obama had to let him go and allow the bus to run over him. I have no idea what it has meant to them personally. It cost me points with Obama, but it really pisses me off when ignorant aholes continue the smear.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

On Ron Paul:

1. He is the Republican default option. If you get pissed at where the Republican Pary has left you, you just vote for Paul without thinking about much else.

2. He is about 90% there on personal freedom, with abortion a real hole in that integrity shield. When he runs as a Libertarian, maybe he can drop that cultural conservative costume.

3. He has a typical Libertarian blindness to social realism and has no faith in democracy as the politics of governing.

4. He was raised in South Texas and grew up sharing most of the racism and sexism and homophobia of his surroundings. If he would own up, repent and show the change he would have no problem. Walking out of an interview is very damaging tv.

5. He is an old guy with a son who makes anyone with progressive political thinking worry about what went on at home;.

6. He threatens to split the Republican Party.

I won't vote for him for President, but I wish him a lot of success, particularly with point 6.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
I won't vote for him for President, but I wish him a lot of success, particularly with point 6.

Randi Rhodes pointed something out yesterday that I hadn't thought about. Ron Paul will not become the GOP candidate, but he will be a huge factor in who does. He is in position to collect a lot of delegates, and to direct them toward the candidate that he most favors. Best to try to divine who that might be. Perhaps somebody who is not now even a candidate.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Thanks Poly for the economic tap out on this nonsense. I wish to return to the smear on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that has been perpetrated and that allow him to be lifted up to counter really awful stuff on the Right. Rev. Wright is a learned exponent of one of my favorite theological frames, "Black Liberation Theology." It is Black in perspective, but not in exclusion or exaltation. It embraces the principle of God's "preferential option for the poor" in reading Scripture and understanding the world. In other words, it puts power in perspective from the bottom up rather than thinking about it from the top down first.

This is why he is vilified for the perfectly accurate statement that "God Bless America" when America is violating the morals of peace and justice with wilfull abandon will bring God's Judgement. This is a totally accurate biblical formula from the prophets, and Mr. Wright's preaching is an excellent example of courageous religious leadership and service when the rest of the Mainline church was asleep and silent on the sins of Empire.

To compare racism, sexism, homophobia and "God Loves America" with a man who led an integrated congregation involved in urban ministry and reconcilliation is really ugly. This lie has come to you courtesy of FAUX, but with a lot of help from the Lamestream and even more ignorance from all concerned. Politically, I guess Obama had to let him go and allow the bus to run over him. I have no idea what it has meant to them personally. It cost me points with Obama, but it really pisses me off when ignorant aholes continue the smear.

Let me make it clear. I don't know if I disagree with that much of what Reverent Wright has said. That was not my point. His famous "god damn America" speech is something I agree with almost entirely. What I AM saying is that alot of his comments were controversial and many were turned off by them. There are many black leaders who have said insulting if not downright racist things about whites and Jews. There is certainly a double standard about how the media reports these associations.

Alot of what was written in these newsletters is not racist. Alot is more correctly classified as non-politically correct. The most offensive statements are completely over the line and I cannot defend them in any way.

But let me state this clearly. This is the ONLY mistake Ron Paul has made in his political career. His fault was not being a racist but rather letting his name be associated with writings that he did not correctly monitor while he was retired from politics in the early 1990s.

Everything else on his record is completely spotless. No one is able to debate him on his speeches, his books, his economics or his defense of the constitution, so his political enemies are having a field day tying him to past "associations" with others.

Robert Byrd was a fucking KKK member but not only did the political class forgive him, nearly all of these politically correct liberals spoke of him in hushed reverence after he died. Most of them don't care whether a person is a racist, they care whether they kowtow to the political class and serve their agenda.

Everyone has certainly made mistakes in their life. If this is Paul's biggest mistake in his political life, why is it not in you to say "okay, this was twenty years ago, he disavows all these statements and he did not provide the oversight necessary to prevent this language from going out in these newsletters." Why could you not recognize that he made a mistake that I believe that any of us could have made. Life is about trusting others to some degree. He placed trust in certain individuals who turned out to not be worthy of that trust.

And you think this disqualifies the man from office? That is ridiculous.

Why do you think it is reasonable to reject the man for this reason alone? What actual policies that Ron Paul advocates do you think are racist? Can you locate any writings by Dr Paul that are remotely similar to this ghostwritten garbage that he has long disavowed?

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am

Response to DRC:

On Ron Paul:

1. He is the Republican default option. If you get pissed at where the Republican Pary has left you, you just vote for Paul without thinking about much else.

This might be true of certain Republicans but I can tell you from experience that most Paul supporters are more well read in economics, history and constitutional law than 90% of the voting population. I support Paul because he is the only politician to have correctly predicted with stunning accuracy the economic crisis that we are suffering under. He is the only one to place blame at the feet of the Federal Reserve and Keynesian economic fallacies. He understands that we will witness the collapse of our currency if we don't reform our economic thinking and curtail the power of the central bank. He has the track record of accurate predictions to prove his worth on fixing our economy. With Paul, our recession might last another two years before a robust recovery. With current policies, expect fifteen to twenty years of hell. A currecy collapse is something you don't want to live through.

Secondly, I want to end our imperialism and have a humble foreign policy. We should be the peacemakers not the warmongers in the world. We should lead the world through example not through force and intimidation.

Finally, he is the only one in our government who takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. When he votes for a bill or introduces legislation, he always asks "I am granted the authority to do this?" If not, he votes no.

What is wrong with this?

2. He is about 90% there on personal freedom, with abortion a real hole in that integrity shield. When he runs as a Libertarian, maybe he can drop that cultural conservative costume.

The man was an OBGYN. He delivered over 4000 babies. I think you should respect his deeply held conviction that late trimester abortions are immoral. He is basing his arguments on science and legal precident, not (primarily) on religious beliefs. Even with his personal beliefs, he does NOT advocate federal laws banning abortion. He understands that the Constitution grants the Federal Government no authority over the matter.

I find it rather disturbing that so many pro choice individuals cannot understand any reason a person could end up with a pro life belief other than they are "anti woman" or a religious nut. Paul made a living looking at ultrasounds of heart beats and brain waves and understanding intimently the stages of pregnancy. Either way, he believes that dispite his personal belief in the matter, nothing will change unless the people change. He doesn't believe you can change the situation by law.

The subject is complicated and nuanced and you should respect the belief of an OBGYN to hold these beliefs based on their life experiece.

3. He has a typical Libertarian blindness to social realism and has no faith in democracy as the politics of governing.

What the hell does "social realism" mean? You are going to have to elaborate on that statement.

As to "democracy" as a wise system, all our founders despised democracy and believed that it leads inevitably to tyranny and authoritarian government. We have a REPUBLIC. That is our system of government. A Republic is a system where the government is restrained by laws. The people have inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the will of the majority. In fact, the founders had very little faith in the people. In any society, a majority is going to be ill informed and not civic-minded. Once people realize they can deprive others of their rights through force, they merely begin to use government as a means to their own selfish ends.

Tyranny of the majority. If our Constitution means anything, it implies a set of delegated functions that the government is granted by the people. The Bill of Rights guarantees our liberties. Democracy is perhaps the worst of all forms of government.

Today politicians always claim a "mandate" when they enter office. Liberals claim that Obama can do whatever the hell he wants because he won. Conservatives claim the same thing when their guy gets in office. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although we elect presidents democratically, once in office, they are only allowed to do things that are expressly allowed by the Constitution. The benchmark for electing presidents should be whether they respect and intend to obey the Constitution while if office.

Every politician takes the same oath of office. So why are they always fighting? Most of what they push is unconstitutional and violates the rights of the people, but they claim some democratic "mandate" to deny people habeas corpus or launch aggressive wars or any number of oppressive policies.

That is why democracy is so dangerous.

4. He was raised in South Texas and grew up sharing most of the racism and sexism and homophobia of his surroundings. If he would own up, repent and show the change he would have no problem. Walking out of an interview is very damaging tv.

This is completely ridiculous. This statement proves you are completely ignorant and don't know what you are talking about. You are just making stuff up. Ron Paul did not grow up Texas. He was born and raised in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, hardly a place of racial resentment and southern bigotry! There was no racism and sexism surrounding him when he grew up.

Are you going to attempt to prove that Ron Paul is racist, sexist or homophobic? Where do you get that from? He was born and raised in one of the northeastern progressive states and there is nothing in his life that remotely matches the selected passages that showed up in the early 90s in his newsletters. If he was truly a racist or a sexist or bigot in any way, you had better show a pattern to prove it. Find a single quote directly attributable to Ron Paul that supports that claim.

By the way, the interview on CNN was heavily edited and consisted of Gloria Borger repeatedly asking Paul the same question he had answered the day before on CNN. He was respectful and finally had no more to say and calmly said goodbuy and ended the interview. If Gloria Borger would have asked another question or have been more of a journalist, she could have gotten more out of the interview. She could have asked "what is your opinion on race relations today?", or something like that. Instead she basically said, "Here are these newsletters and offensive quotes that you have already responded to about a dozen times in the last two days, how do you respond?" He answered "Like I have said, I disagree with those statements entirely, they weren't written by me and I disavow all of them". Then she kept pressing with the same question again. And again. If she would have asked a different question, I'm sure Ron Paul would have answered it honestly. There are many racial inequities in our system that he has talked in length about. But no one needs to be harassed by a journalist about the same question repeatedly that he has already answered.

5. He is an old guy with a son who makes anyone with progressive political thinking worry about what went on at home;.

What exactly is this supposed to mean? I happen to believe that a belief in liberty is progressive political thinking. That is why it is really more the ageing baby boomers who think like you do, while the young people like me are libertarians who support Ron Paul. Individual liberty, private property, sound money, and a market economy are the most progressive ideas ever devised. Humans have only had a small introduction of the prosperity and human flourishing that result from the ideas of individual liberty. The idea of economic central planning and having governments make all the decisions is an old idea, it has been tried in various incarnations and inevitably leads to hyperinflation, debt and poverty.

You may think of yourself as a "progressive thinking" person. I think of myself the same way. But you need to reexamine your worldview and see if your idea of society might actually be promoting force and aggression and violating the civil liberties of others who you disagree with.

The most radical and progressive idea ever is to respect the sovereignty of all individuals and reject any use of violence to mold society and force your views on others. A true progressives believes in using persuasion and voluntarism to organize society. We can all believe in different things but be tolerant and respectful of others even if we disagree.

Given that that sums up Paul's political ideology, it is ludicrous to think that he is a racist or bigot. A libertarian society that rejects force and violence and coercion is the ONLY antidote to racism. It is the only tolerant political ideology. So called "progressives" who obsess about racial identities and set asides and affirmative action and pandering to the "black vote" or the "latino vote" are inherently racist whether they know it or not. Obsession with racial group identities is racist by definition. Promoting group identities empowers racist thinking. Only by breaking this destructive thinking by treating everyone as individuals can we overcome racism.

6. He threatens to split the Republican Party.

So what. He might split the Republican Party, but he gains enough Independents and Democrats who will vote Republican and support him in the general election that he can still win the nomination and the presidency.

I won't vote for him for President, but I wish him a lot of success, particularly with point 6.

Instead of giving out that backhanded "compliment", why don't you respond to what I have written here in some detail. You are an individual who could do with some serious self reflection and reexamination of your core beliefs.

I hope you take the challenge to engage in a debate with me.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote Art:
I won't vote for him for President, but I wish him a lot of success, particularly with point 6.

Randi Rhodes pointed something out yesterday that I hadn't thought about. Ron Paul will not become the GOP candidate, but he will be a huge factor in who does. He is in position to collect a lot of delegates, and to direct them toward the candidate that he most favors. Best to try to divine who that might be. Perhaps somebody who is not now even a candidate.

I can guarantee that Ron Paul will not support any other Republican in this race. What COULD happen is that he is enough of a factor to prevent anyone from getting enough delegates to prevent anyone from winning enough to secure the nomination. This would lead to a brokered convention. Even if Paul is behind, he could make the case for him being the only nominee who can beat Obama because he would argue that his supporters would NOT vote for any other Republican and their not participating would cost the GOP the presidency. Therefore, ONLY Ron Paul could get his passionate supporters, the GOP base that would vote for anyone but Obama and he could also peel off quite a few Obama supporters who love Paul's foreign policy, his opposition to the war on drugs, and his defense of civil liberties.

That would be quite interesting. I hope Paul gets enough delegates.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote DRC:

On Ron Paul:

2. He is about 90% there on personal freedom, with abortion a real hole in that integrity shield. When he runs as a Libertarian, maybe he can drop that cultural conservative costume.

Ron Paul is a pro-life libertarians. Small "l" libertarians oppose the use of aggression. Some libertarians apply this principle to the issue of abortion. There is Libertarians for Life, which opposes abortion for scientific or philosophical reasons.

http://www.l4l.org/

Quote DRC:

4. He was raised in South Texas and grew up sharing most of the racism and sexism and homophobia of his surroundings. If he would own up, repent and show the change he would have no problem. Walking out of an interview is very damaging tv.

Ron Paul was raised in the Pittsburgh area. I think the interview you refer to was edited. Plus, CNN had asked him the same question twice the day before.

Quote DRC:

5. He is an old guy with a son who makes anyone with progressive political thinking worry about what went on at home;.

Seems like ad hominem to me.

Quote DRC:

I won't vote for him for President, but I wish him a lot of success, particularly with point 6.

You actually believe there is a difference between the two parties?

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I am going to respond to this one by one.

poly wrote:

1. Keynesian economics hasn't been applied. The employer of last resort still has the "No Help Wanted" sign out. Government is still taxing the economy to feed finance rather than taxing finance to feed the economy,.

Huge deficits in a recession and goverment "stimulus" to prop up the economy is entirely Keynesian. It has never worked and it never will. In the 1930s, these policies lenghthened the Great Depression and prevented the necessary correction from occuring.

It is interesting that Keynes did talk about the harm debt does "in the long term". That is why he advised that we run large deficits during recessions and during the "good times" we cut back, run a surplus and pay down debt. However, we have NEVER done this. Keynes really should have known better than to trust politicians to pay down debt when they have access to a money printing machine and can just buy their way to reelection. He was entirely naive.

Running deficits during a recession doesn't work either. Recessions occur because there is an imbalance in the economy. The market tries to correct itself by liquidating the bad debt and reallocating scarce resources towards productive uses. Keynesian policies prop up bad debt and prevent recovery.

The Great Depression only ended after World War II ended and we cut spending massively and allowed the final correction to occur. All the Keynesian intervention and even a World War failed to end the Depression. Finally, we cut spending by two thirds and cut taxes by one third. All the economists of the day (apart from the Austrians like Mises and Hayek) predicted a massive worsening of conditions. But the opposite occured. Why do these economists maintain any credibility?

2. It wouldn't work in the same manner FDR utilized it. The economy has been outsourced. it would need a new economic engine. Soros suggested green technologies.

The government cannot know what technologies are the best. The reason we need a market economy is to ensure that the winners in energy, for example, are the most efficient and the best. Through competition the energy sources that satisfy all the needs of consumers best are chosen. Politicians cannot make those decisions. When they do, the companies they choose are generally cronies who get subsidized and generally produce an inferior product due to lack of any incentive to innovate or compete.

3.. When there is idle productive capacity, governments don't have to borrow money into existence. They can simply spend money into existence to utilize the idle capacity. Maybe instead of shutting down "surplus" auto plants, we could have converted them into producing light rail transit systems instead of WWII tanks and jeeps. Government could have simply spent money into existence to utilize the idle capacity. A "dangerous" precedent for financiers and banksters to swallow.

Why should the government spend any money at all? What we need is more savings. True investment and lasting economic growth is predicating on "capital" (meaning savings) to draw from. What we want is for the people to spend the money, not the politicians. We need to liquidate bad debt, build up our savings, and then have the people spend the money. Allow entrepreneurs make the decisions on whether or not we need "light rail transit" or something else.

Because remember, when the government spends money, it will likely not be on something of practical use, it will be entirely wasted. Make work government jobs are created to distort unemployment statistics by hiring people to do totally unproductive things. They might hire 50 people to dig a hole and fifty more to fill it back up.

That is what government spending will get you, lots of money spent and very little in return.

The U.S. will continue spiraling into decline no matter which major party wins. They are all ideologues.

This is true except for Ron Paul. If we followed his advice on the economy and reforming the monetary system, we would have a few more bad years no doubt. But we would be able to work our way back to prosperity and reclaim our former greatness. The rest don't have a clue.

Ideologies are based upon beliefs. Any resemblance between beliefs and what's actually so are purely coincidental. That's why we call them beliefs rather than truths..

One of the great beliefs they all share in is the "invisible hand of the free market".

They certainly don't all share that belief. What they hell have you been smoking? If these politicians believed in the free market why are they spending so much money? Why are they passing so many regulations? Why are they hell bent on interfering in the market in every imaginable way.

I would fathom that less than 10% of those working in government actually believe in anything close to a free market economy.

"The 'invisible hand' is a myth. A religion". Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate, economics.

Basing the economic policy of a nation on a myth is pretty stupid. Woe is us.

What is meant by "The invisible hand is a myth"? You certainly don't make a compelling case. Actually you don't bother to make any case whatsoever.

A market economy is based on free individuals engaging in multiple mutually beneficial exchanges with each other. Are you saying this doesn't happen? Isn't this human nature? Are you suggesting that without government there would be no economy? The free market always exists. The only thing that changes is the degree to which governments intrude into it. If our currency collapses and government services fail entirely, the economy would still exist. People would start bartering or using other currencies that emerge out of the marketplace.

Now, you are correct that the economy would be unstable and dangerous if there is not law and order. But law and order supports the marketplace by facilitating its growth while protecting people from fraud, enforcing contracts and preventing peoples rights from being violated. This is a far cry from Keynesian intervention and a leviathan State that seeks to centrally plan every aspect of economic life.

If you want to claim the "invisible hand" is a myth, you will have to make a real case.

-----------

On another note: Had we allowed the private financial system to collapse, we'd have to replace it with a public one. on the model of the state-owned Bank of N. Dakota. We're not willing to do that If we allowed the private financial system to collapse, then every private and business account in a bank would become insolvent..Every check written would be returned stamped "Insufficient Funds". just as they were in the Great Depression. The FDIC, no government, would have the funds to cover them all.

We didn't have a private financial system. It was a government system that favored private individuals. Correctly the term is Fascism.

We'll prop up the private financial system with our last dollar. Literally, that's what it will take.

The global financial system has claims on the entire productive output of the globe. Now its up to governments to give them the money to cover those claims or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Dig deep. Bailing financiers and backing their claims on the globe's entire economic output is going to get expensive.

I find it weird that Marx was the only economist who foresaw this happening. Capitalism cannibalising itself.

Its not Capitalism at all. You must understand that. Its Fascism. Its entirely government except that there are private profiteers. The mechanisms for abuse all run through government force and government fiat money.

Marx did not forsee this. The only economists who forsaw this crisis were the Austrian economists, like Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, FA Hayek and others. They have the credibility. Ron Paul has the credibility. He warned about this crisis a decade ago.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am

This is me, ignoring these posts.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote jrodefeld:
Quote Garrett78:
Quote jrodefeld:And given that he is going to win in Iowa...

Riiiight. The plutocrats aren't going to allow someone with his foreign policy views (as poly says, his other views spell disaster) to garner the kind of attention that would result from Paul winning in Iowa.

It'll be neoliberal vs. neoliberal, probably Obama vs. Romney. The 'horse race' will dominate the news for a year, and the victory will go to...drumroll please...the neoliberal. Probably the one who will do the best job of keeping the protesters at bay. You know, the guy who won the marketing award: http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/

Have you been following the news at all?

If you mean the corporate infotainment, no. I watch Democracy Now online most days. My wife and I don't have TV.

Kucinich does very well in polls, too. It means nothing. Ron Paul will not be allowed to win the nomination, and I doubt very seriously that he'll be allowed to win in Iowa. Neoliberalism has dominated for decades, and that isn't about to change.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 8:20 am

How is it that, once again, Ron Paul supporters have hijacked the message board and turned it into a campaign platform for their guy. Let's get back to the subject at hand which is that Dr. Paul cannot run away from all of the racism that is inherent in the far right groups that he associates himself with!

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm
Quote Art:

This is me, ignoring these posts.

No your not. Your cluttering up this thread with useless comments. Try again and actually contribut something of value.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote Garrett78:
Quote jrodefeld:
Quote Garrett78:
Quote jrodefeld:And given that he is going to win in Iowa...

Riiiight. The plutocrats aren't going to allow someone with his foreign policy views (as poly says, his other views spell disaster) to garner the kind of attention that would result from Paul winning in Iowa.

It'll be neoliberal vs. neoliberal, probably Obama vs. Romney. The 'horse race' will dominate the news for a year, and the victory will go to...drumroll please...the neoliberal. Probably the one who will do the best job of keeping the protesters at bay. You know, the guy who won the marketing award: http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/

Have you been following the news at all?

If you mean the corporate infotainment, no. I watch Democracy Now online most days. My wife and I don't have TV.

Kucinich does very well in polls, too. It means nothing. Ron Paul will not be allowed to win the nomination, and I doubt very seriously that he'll be allowed to win in Iowa. Neoliberalism has dominated for decades, and that isn't about to change.

I agree with you, but I don't think they will be able to stop him from winning Iowa. They can't control everything. And the caucus process is much harder to manipulate than normal primaries. Ron Paul's people will be out there. He is fantastically organized in Iowa.

I certainly understand your pessimism about the political process, but I want Ron Paul to do as well as he can possibly do. If they have to take drastic measures and resort to outright voter fraud, then I want to force them to do it. The better Paul does, the more it hurts the political establishment.

There is no other choice. I am certainly not going to vote for Romney or Obama. Someone has to break through the "gatekeepers" at some point.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote jrodefeld:
Quote Art:

This is me, ignoring these posts.

No your not. Your cluttering up this thread with useless comments. Try again and actually contribut something of value.

I posted something of value about your hero with a link. Did ya check it out?

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am
Quote mdhess:

How is it that, once again, Ron Paul supporters have hijacked the message board and turned it into a campaign platform for their guy. Let's get back to the subject at hand which is that Dr. Paul cannot run away from all of the racism that is inherent in the far right groups that he associates himself with!

"All the racism" inherent in "far right" groups? Ron Paul is not running away from anything. He has been involved in politics since the early 1970s. He has written a dozen books, authored many articles and given hundreds of speeches over the years. The only "racist" stuff that has ever been associated with him were maybe a dozen articles that appeared in the early 1990s that were written by ghostwriters. There is nothing else that suggest that Ron Paul supports racists or condones any of these beliefs.

If you want to continue to make that case, provide actual proof by saying which policies Paul advocates that are racist. Or find a quote that Paul actually wrote that is racist. If you cannot, then you must admit that these newsletters were an aberation and an isolated event that, at worst, suggest that Dr Paul did not provide proper oversight of content in his newsletters when he was retired from Congress. Thus there is no case to be made that Ron Paul is racist, supports racism or has any "history" or "pattern" of empowering "neoconfederates" or any other such nonsense that is being suggested by the less honest media figures.

If you have evidence to the contrary, then share it with us. If not, then I will take it that you concede the argument.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote Sprinklerfitter:
Quote jrodefeld:
Quote Art:

This is me, ignoring these posts.

No your not. Your cluttering up this thread with useless comments. Try again and actually contribut something of value.

I posted something of value about your hero with a link. Did ya check it out?

Yeah, I saw that: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/video-surfaces-ron-paul-talking-racist-newsletters-1995-earlier-knew-article-1.995876

However, unfortunately for you and those who want to do harm to Ron Paul's campaign, there is no hypocrisy or flip flopping in what Ron Paul has said. There were an aweful lot of writings that Paul did and various publications that he was involved in. What Ron Paul is discussing in 1995 was a report detailing "hard money", a collection of dry economic literature about monetary policy and the gold standard and the sort of material that Paul has long written about. Nothing was said that gave any indication that Ron Paul condoned any offensive material that was released in any newsletters. In fact, this stuff didn't even surface until a year later when he ran for Congress again. In that campaign, Paul took moral responsibility for not preventing the offensive material from being published or linked to him, but he rejected it and disavowed it then as he does today.

You must be really desperate. If you want to sink Ron Paul's candidacy, you have to do better than that.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote jrodefeld:
Quote mdhess:

How is it that, once again, Ron Paul supporters have hijacked the message board and turned it into a campaign platform for their guy. Let's get back to the subject at hand which is that Dr. Paul cannot run away from all of the racism that is inherent in the far right groups that he associates himself with!

"All the racism" inherent in "far right" groups? Ron Paul is not running away from anything. He has been involved in politics since the early 1970s. He has written a dozen books, authored many articles and given hundreds of speeches over the years. The only "racist" stuff that has ever been associated with him were maybe a dozen articles that appeared in the early 1990s that were written by ghostwriters. There is nothing else that suggest that Ron Paul supports racists or condones any of these beliefs.

If you want to continue to make that case, provide actual proof by saying which policies Paul advocates that are racist. Or find a quote that Paul actually wrote that is racist. If you cannot, then you must admit that these newsletters were an aberation and an isolated event that, at worst, suggest that Dr Paul did not provide proper oversight of content in his newsletters when he was retired from Congress. Thus there is no case to be made that Ron Paul is racist, supports racism or has any "history" or "pattern" of empowering "neoconfederates" or any other such nonsense that is being suggested by the less honest media figures.

If you have evidence to the contrary, then share it with us. If not, then I will take it that you concede the argument.

Here you go.......If it's to painfull for you to watch I can delete it.....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/video-surfaces-ron-paul-talking-racist-newsletters-1995-earlier-knew-article-1.995876

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am
Quote Sprinklerfitter:
Quote jrodefeld:
Quote mdhess:

How is it that, once again, Ron Paul supporters have hijacked the message board and turned it into a campaign platform for their guy. Let's get back to the subject at hand which is that Dr. Paul cannot run away from all of the racism that is inherent in the far right groups that he associates himself with!

"All the racism" inherent in "far right" groups? Ron Paul is not running away from anything. He has been involved in politics since the early 1970s. He has written a dozen books, authored many articles and given hundreds of speeches over the years. The only "racist" stuff that has ever been associated with him were maybe a dozen articles that appeared in the early 1990s that were written by ghostwriters. There is nothing else that suggest that Ron Paul supports racists or condones any of these beliefs.

If you want to continue to make that case, provide actual proof by saying which policies Paul advocates that are racist. Or find a quote that Paul actually wrote that is racist. If you cannot, then you must admit that these newsletters were an aberation and an isolated event that, at worst, suggest that Dr Paul did not provide proper oversight of content in his newsletters when he was retired from Congress. Thus there is no case to be made that Ron Paul is racist, supports racism or has any "history" or "pattern" of empowering "neoconfederates" or any other such nonsense that is being suggested by the less honest media figures.

If you have evidence to the contrary, then share it with us. If not, then I will take it that you concede the argument.

Here you go.......If it's to painfull for you to watch I can delete it.....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/video-surfaces-ron-paul-talking-racist-newsletters-1995-earlier-knew-article-1.995876

I already responded to that link. Respond to what I have already said about this. That link says nothing about Ron Paul endorsing any racist views. You're not that bright are you?

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote jrodefeld:
Quote Sprinklerfitter:
Quote jrodefeld:
Quote mdhess:

How is it that, once again, Ron Paul supporters have hijacked the message board and turned it into a campaign platform for their guy. Let's get back to the subject at hand which is that Dr. Paul cannot run away from all of the racism that is inherent in the far right groups that he associates himself with!

"All the racism" inherent in "far right" groups? Ron Paul is not running away from anything. He has been involved in politics since the early 1970s. He has written a dozen books, authored many articles and given hundreds of speeches over the years. The only "racist" stuff that has ever been associated with him were maybe a dozen articles that appeared in the early 1990s that were written by ghostwriters. There is nothing else that suggest that Ron Paul supports racists or condones any of these beliefs.

If you want to continue to make that case, provide actual proof by saying which policies Paul advocates that are racist. Or find a quote that Paul actually wrote that is racist. If you cannot, then you must admit that these newsletters were an aberation and an isolated event that, at worst, suggest that Dr Paul did not provide proper oversight of content in his newsletters when he was retired from Congress. Thus there is no case to be made that Ron Paul is racist, supports racism or has any "history" or "pattern" of empowering "neoconfederates" or any other such nonsense that is being suggested by the less honest media figures.

If you have evidence to the contrary, then share it with us. If not, then I will take it that you concede the argument.

Here you go.......If it's to painfull for you to watch I can delete it.....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/video-surfaces-ron-paul-talking-racist-newsletters-1995-earlier-knew-article-1.995876

I already responded to that link. Respond to what I have already said about this. That link says nothing about Ron Paul endorsing any racist views. You're not that bright are you?

First.......I'm smart enough not to support a loser like paul period especially on a web site for progressives.

Second.......Speaking of not being very bright care to guess where that leaves you and your kind at? I see now why his kid rand is an idiot. The nut didn't fall far from the tree........Eh?

I guess you paul supporters didn't bother to read the memo Mrs. Hartman posted on the main board about your kind posting your never ending nonsense here. That is a total lack of respect for the owners of this site not to mention a lack of class on your part for not following the guidelines on this site.

Why don't you paul supporters go post your shit on a board where somebody might actually give a fuck?

BTW.....MERRY CHRISTMAS

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am

First off, if Rep. Paul cannot handle a CNN hack asking about a newsletter that had his name on it, how can he stand up to Putin? The newsletter ran under Dr. Ron Paul's name. He was responsible for it, and all content. Further, he, like Gov. Wallace likely is not a racist. But, like Gov. Wallace, Dr. Paul understood his voters, and knew he would lose if he got "out niggered". It is a Gov. Wallace term, look it up.
Which doesn't excuse Dr. Paul, it damns him moreso. Knowing that blaming lazy blacks, or illegals, to fan the flames of hatred and bigotry for political victory, if he didn't even hold those beliefs speaks to much deeper, calculated evil than just the excuse of social norms of his youth.

Next, Dr. Paul's economic freedom is the freedom of extreme poverty, serfdom of the masses, and bringing widespread homelessness for abandoned children. Visit Columbia, Sudan or Brazil, or India for examples.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

jrodefeld wrote:

The Great Depression only ended after World War II ended and we cut spending massively and allowed the final correction to occur. All the Keynesian intervention and even a World War failed to end the Depression. Finally, we cut spending by two thirds and cut taxes by one third. All the economists of the day (apart from the Austrians like Mises and Hayek) predicted a massive worsening of conditions. But the opposite occured. Why do these economists maintain any credibility?

poly replies: You've swallowed the history re-write koolaid. Stimulous reduced unemployment by 15%. After stimulous was cut back, we had the recession of 1936. Unemployment returned to Great Depression levels.

The stimulous spending of World War II was finally enough to put everyone back to work. The "forced savings" from rationing created an enormous reserve of money suddenly able to be spent after the war. Combine that with the G.I. Bill, the formation of millions of new households/furnishing from it.... and free univ. education with a salary....and the U.S. Golden Age came into being. It ended in the 70's after a new ideology took hold.....the one that's still with us today..Please stop spouting it or this nation will never recover..

The Marshall Plan and private investment utilized surplus U.S. production to re-build Europe It solved the surplus vs, market problem inherent in all advanced capitalist economies. How to dispose of the surplus production that domestic workers can't buy because of the profit extraction. Wages never, ever equal production in an advanced capitalist economy (a system in operation, by the way, for only several centuries)..Europe absorbed the surplus (that which can't be sold domestically).

Get how an economy such as ours functions. It thrives in its infancy (though at a high human cost)..... reaches a pinnacle at maturity with spread prosperity...., and melts down in old age as wealth becomes more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

.The Economic/social structure didn't drop down from heaven as a done deal. It was engineered to do exactly as it does. as all economic/social structures do. Sometimes the results aren't what was expected.....as now. The outcome is a direct result of the design..

Banksters and financiers have monetary claims on the entire productive output of the globe. Every last dime. Engineered (purposefully or not) to get that result.

Ron Paul can't change that without throwing out the entire privatized financial system and replacing it with a public one. His own ideology, like that of all the other candidates, will prevent him from doing that. Pay up or face a full meltdown and the disappearance of every checking/savings account in the nation, indeed, in the entire globe Greek and Irish pensions are the first down payment. Many more to come.

What works is ideologically "off the table" with Ron Paul and his opposition. in both parties. If we are to prevent total meltdown we have to prop up the two-century-old privatized financial system with our very last dollar...that includes a Ron Paul Presidency. Then what? Maybe the ideological blinders will finally come off after the full impoverishment of the planet. Maybe at that time, the privatized financial system will finally be given the boot. Maybe.

. .Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Sprinklerfitter:
Quote jrodefeld:
Quote Sprinklerfitter:
Quote jrodefeld:
Quote mdhess:

How is it that, once again, Ron Paul supporters have hijacked the message board and turned it into a campaign platform for their guy. Let's get back to the subject at hand which is that Dr. Paul cannot run away from all of the racism that is inherent in the far right groups that he associates himself with!

"All the racism" inherent in "far right" groups? Ron Paul is not running away from anything. He has been involved in politics since the early 1970s. He has written a dozen books, authored many articles and given hundreds of speeches over the years. The only "racist" stuff that has ever been associated with him were maybe a dozen articles that appeared in the early 1990s that were written by ghostwriters. There is nothing else that suggest that Ron Paul supports racists or condones any of these beliefs.

If you want to continue to make that case, provide actual proof by saying which policies Paul advocates that are racist. Or find a quote that Paul actually wrote that is racist. If you cannot, then you must admit that these newsletters were an aberation and an isolated event that, at worst, suggest that Dr Paul did not provide proper oversight of content in his newsletters when he was retired from Congress. Thus there is no case to be made that Ron Paul is racist, supports racism or has any "history" or "pattern" of empowering "neoconfederates" or any other such nonsense that is being suggested by the less honest media figures.

If you have evidence to the contrary, then share it with us. If not, then I will take it that you concede the argument.

Here you go.......If it's to painfull for you to watch I can delete it.....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/video-surfaces-ron-paul-talking-racist-newsletters-1995-earlier-knew-article-1.995876

I already responded to that link. Respond to what I have already said about this. That link says nothing about Ron Paul endorsing any racist views. You're not that bright are you?

First.......I'm smart enough not to support a loser like paul period especially on a web site for progressives.

Second.......Speaking of not being very bright care to guess where that leaves you and your kind at? I see now why his kid rand is an idiot. The nut didn't fall far from the tree........Eh?

I guess you paul supporters didn't bother to read the memo Mrs. Hartman posted on the main board about your kind posting your never ending nonsense here. That is a total lack of respect for the owners of this site not to mention a lack of class on your part for not following the guidelines on this site.

Why don't you paul supporters go post your shit on a board where somebody might actually give a fuck?

BTW.....MERRY CHRISTMAS

You don't have to post in this thread. If your goal is to have a carefully monitored website where everyone who doesn't agree with you entirely is excluded, then I suggest you might be rather insecure in your own views. The reason for political forums such as this one is so that people can exchange information freely and engage in discussion and debate.

If you are a true progressive, then you should be comfortable and prepared to defend your views.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am

The Great Depression bottomed out in March 1933. Then there was steady and impressive growth in GDP until 1937, when FDR succumbed to a freak-out over the defecit and responded by cutting New Deal programs. The ensuing recession was deep and severe, but nowhere near the earlier Depression. FDR had no problem understanding the dynamics and reversed his policy until June, 1938. That was when the Depression ended for sure.

The charts are clear. Unfortunately, the Von Mises acolytes don't believe in charts or graphs or tables. There's no real way to have a discussion about these matters.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Forgot to include the chart.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:First off, if Rep. Paul cannot handle a CNN hack asking about a newsletter that had his name on it, how can he stand up to Putin? The newsletter ran under Dr. Ron Paul's name. He was responsible for it, and all content. Further, he, like Gov. Wallace likely is not a racist. But, like Gov. Wallace, Dr. Paul understood his voters, and knew he would lose if he got "out niggered". It is a Gov. Wallace term, look it up. Which doesn't excuse Dr. Paul, it damns him moreso. Knowing that blaming lazy blacks, or illegals, to fan the flames of hatred and bigotry for political victory, if he didn't even hold those beliefs speaks to much deeper, calculated evil than just the excuse of social norms of his youth. Next, Dr. Paul's economic freedom is the freedom of extreme poverty, serfdom of the masses, and bringing widespread homelessness for abandoned children. Visit Columbia, Sudan or Brazil, or India for examples.

This is all complete nonsense. What do you mean Ron Paul "couldn't handle" the CNN interview? If you had done any research whatsoever, you would know that what CNN aired was a highly edited video of the Borger interview that suggested that Dr Paul couldn't handle the heat and fled from questioning. This was a carefully orchestrated smear and blatant propaganda on CNN's part.

The unedited interview was released recently and it told a far different picture. Far from fleeing from tough questioning, the interview lasting more than 8 minutes and was over when Dr Paul took off his microphone and walked away. In the course of that interview a number of questions were asked, and some variation on the same question about the newsletters was asked and answered at least three times. Look at this interview yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLonnC_ZWQ0&feature=youtu.be

Does that strike you as someone who "couldn't handle" Gloria Borger, an avowed political hack? Can you see how CNN edited that interview to give an entirely different impression to the viewer? Whether or not you find Paul's explanations credible, I think you all should condemn the horrible media bias and propaganda that is being put out.

Secondly, if you knew anything of the 1980's and early 90's, you would know that Ron Paul was associated in some way with all the rather small libertarian organizations at the time. As today, he was seen as their standard bearer. Many of these groups disagreed with each other but they all supported Ron Paul. Dr Paul was retired from politics following 1988 when he ran as the libertarian party candidate. His "noninterventionism", a cornerstone of his beliefs, meant that he was open and willing to make his case for liberty to any group that was willing to listen. He was also reluctant to tell other people what to do. He is supremely confident in what he believes, but he doesn't feel the need to condone everything others believe in. In fact, it is known that he has spoken to members of the John Birch Society and people like Alex Jones. Paul disagrees with these people on many, many issues. His opponents however, will use these associations to tarnish Ron Paul and claim he condones everything they have ever said.

Many websites have suggested that during that period of time, in a small segment of the libertarian movement, there was an orchestrated plan to branch out and try to appeal to a broader coalition. In a very misguided and cynical step, some individuals decided to appeal to right wing constituents on social issues. This was a big devide among libertarians at the time, with most arguing that this betrayed the progressive liniage of the "classical liberal" tradition. Many interviews with Paul at the time prove that he rejected this approach and never condoned such behavior. This "strategy" of appealing to David Duke types over cultural issues was abandoned by the mid 90s. Even those involved at the time have expressed deep regret and have moderated their views in the years since.

But the truth was that Dr Paul was the figurehead of most libertarian groups at the time due to his extensive writings and higher profile. It was almost unavoidable that he would become associated with this strategy that he strongly condemned. Add to this, the fact that he was retired and working in medicine full time and I think it is easy to see why a low circulation newsletter published by his company "Ron Paul and Associates", but not overseen by Paul, could have some of this material published without his knowledge.

The 1995 interview that others on this thread have ludicrously claimed proves he knew about and condoned this material, in actuality makes Paul seem more credible. The material that he was aware of was dry economic literature advocating the gold standard and reforms in monetary policy. The writings that Paul has been directly involved with throughout his career have always been very technical and philosophical in nature.

The larger point is if negligence during this period of time was the greatest failing of Ron Paul's career, what is preventing you from forgiving him and understanding that by comparison, all the other politicians past actions and associations are far more damning? Not only that, but the ACTIONS that Obama or Romney or Gingrich are likely to take will be to sell out this country to the highest bidder. Besides, Ron Paul does not have control over every element of the libertarian movement. If these offending passages don't reflect Ron Paul's views, and nobody really believes they do, then why is it necessary to spend all this time rehashing a story from twenty two years ago?

Setting aside all this, at what point is there too much media coverage? It is not unjustified to vet and candidate. But for the media to be completely aware of a story and just sit on it until Paul becomes a threat to win in Iowa and New Hampshire and then run the story 24/7 for weeks, is that not absolutely propaganda and poor journalism? Especially when the media itself has been so dishonest in reporting the story. It is certainly calculated to hurt Ron Paul, rather than to inform the public.

The story should be this: There were newsletters that were associated with Ron Paul's name that contained some offensive paragraphs. They were not written by Ron Paul but he was the publisher. He denies writing them or reading them at the time and completely disowns their content.

Thats the story. Now once people have heard that, they will either believe Ron Paul's explanation or they won't. There is nothing more to tell on this story. What do you expect Ron Paul to do? For years he has disowned these newsletters and admitted that he was not aware of the offensive content (which really comprised at most 1% of the letters) and he has accepted moral responsibility for not providing greater oversight at the time. There is really nothing more than can be said on the subject.

Now, don't you think its fair to also inform the viewers about his solutions for today's problems? He has economic policies that will deal with the debt and reform our monetary system. He wants to cut our military and restore civil liberties and curtail the power of the Executive branch. He has decades of writings that were unquestionably authored by him that can be discussed and people can know about them.

So, seriously, what do you expect from him? Is there any explanation or speech that would satisfy you? Do you think its fair in any sense that 90% of the news stories about Paul for the next three weeks will be centered around these old newsletters rather than his solutions to current economic problems that are affecting people in profound ways?

All I ask on this forum is that you guys defend your positions and express your views coherently and don't run away from a debate. For example the statement: "Dr. Paul's economic freedom is the freedom of extreme poverty, serfdom of the masses, and bringing widespread homelessness for abandoned children." is patently absurd and filled with extreme hyperbole. This type of rhetoric is usually employed when a person is unable to discuss the issue in much depth and resorts to extreme generalizations.

So, please, defend that statement. I am interested in hearing why you believe economic liberty and the marketplace lead to extreme poverty when the extent of recorded history seems to indicate the exact opposite. It is in fact Socialist and Authoritarian societies that engender poverty and hopelessness. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it. Don't shy away from debate.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote polycarp2:

jrodefeld wrote:

The Great Depression only ended after World War II ended and we cut spending massively and allowed the final correction to occur. All the Keynesian intervention and even a World War failed to end the Depression. Finally, we cut spending by two thirds and cut taxes by one third. All the economists of the day (apart from the Austrians like Mises and Hayek) predicted a massive worsening of conditions. But the opposite occured. Why do these economists maintain any credibility?

poly replies: You've swallowed the history re-write koolaid. Stimulous reduced unemployment by 15%. After stimulous was cut back, we had the recession of 1936. Unemployment returned to Great Depression levels.

Do you honestly think that all types of employment are the same? Unemployment statistics are only one form of economic health, and can be quite misleading. Governments can create make-work jobs that reduce unemployment. But government cannot create wealth. They can only redistribute wealth. Resources are used to employ people doing unproductive things. The question you have to ask yourself is: where would those resources have otherwise been allocated? What more productive jobs might have come into existence if the government had gotten out of the way?

The stimulous spending of World War II was finally enough to put everyone back to work. The "forced savings" from rationing created an enormous reserve of money suddenly able to be spent after the war. Combine that with the G.I. Bill, the formation of millions of new households/furnishing from it.... and free univ. education with a salary....and the U.S. Golden Age came into being. It ended in the 70's after a new ideology took hold.....the one that's still with us today..Please stop spouting it or this nation will never recover..

The Austrian ideology of Sound Money and Free Markets has not been in effect in the last few decades. Look at Ron Paul's record of speechs and all his writings. The key thing that has characterized the period you exalt is the destruction of our money. In 1932, FDR confiscated all the people's gold and removed the domestic link of the dollar to gold. The money was still tied to gold internationally and the monetary authority was restrained. However, in 1971, the last link to gold was removed and we embraced a worldwide fiat money system with the dollar being the reserve currency of the world.

THIS is the source of all the problems you think are due to the "free market" and libertarian ideology. The middle class was stronger during the beginning and middle of the twentieth century because our money had real value and we had a small government. Taxes were lower and we had more economic liberty. That is the source of the prosperity.

If you think that Ron Paul embraces the same ideology that has caused our downfall during these past few decades, why do you think he has been so unhappy and has written so many books and articles condemning our government, the Federal Reserve and "mainstream" economists?

World War II was not a boost to the economy but a drain. Yes, unemployment went down. But what economic benefit is there to manufacturing bombs to use to destroy and kill people overseas? This doesn't improve our standard of living? What if those resources were used to manufacture cars or raw materials for manufacturing? Would that not be a better use of finite resources?

Governments cannot know what to spend money on in an economy. Central economic planning does not work. Collectively, through our economic actions and consumer preference, we can know where resources need to be allocated to satisfy the most urgent needs. There is no way around this.

The Marshall Plan and private investment utilized surplus U.S. production to re-build Europe It solved the surplus vs, market problem inherent in all advanced capitalist economies. How to dispose of the surplus production that domestic workers can't buy because of the profit extraction. Wages never, ever equal production in an advanced capitalist economy (a system in operation, by the way, for only several centuries)..Europe absorbed the surplus (that which can't be sold domestically).

Get how an economy such as ours functions. It thrives in its infancy (though at a high human cost)..... reaches a pinnacle at maturity with spread prosperity...., and melts down in old age as wealth becomes more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

This is ridiculous. Wealth is the most evenly distributed in a free market. Crony capitalists and bankers need to become authoritarian to protect their profits from competition and market discipline. This is the downfall of Capitalist societies. They become not capitalist, but corporatist and authoritarian.

The solution is to ensure the bankers cannot take over the government. We need to ensure the money maintains its value through backing it with something tangible. And we need to ensure the government stays limited and carries out its functions effectively and without preference to certain groups over others.

In this environment of freedom and equality, human flourishing and prosperity thrive.

.The Economic/social structure didn't drop down from heaven as a done deal. It was engineered to do exactly as it does. as all economic/social structures do. Sometimes the results aren't what was expected.....as now. The outcome is a direct result of the design..

Banksters and financiers have monetary claims on the entire productive output of the globe. Every last dime. Engineered (purposefully or not) to get that result.

I agree with this. That is why we need to attack the problem at its source: Central Banking. We need to reject a central bank and the practice of fractional reserve banking.

Ron Paul can't change that without throwing out the entire privatized financial system and replacing it with a public one. His own ideology, like that of all the other candidates, will prevent him from doing that. Pay up or face a full meltdown and the disappearance of every checking/savings account in the nation, indeed, in the entire globe Greek and Irish pensions are the first down payment. Many more to come.

You are wrong here. The banking and financial system is not privatized. It is a hybrid of government and private interests, combining the worst aspects of both. The truth is that the monetary system that we have breeds this type of corruption. Regulations will not prevent these interests from decending like locusts on Washington. Fiat money is the problem. Government should not have favors to pass out. The financiers and Wall Street people should not have a fiat money system to gamble with.

How exactly, do you think that replacing the financial system with a "public" one will solve the problem?

What works is ideologically "off the table" with Ron Paul and his opposition. in both parties. If we are to prevent total meltdown we have to prop up the two-century-old privatized financial system with our very last dollar...that includes a Ron Paul Presidency. Then what? Maybe the ideological blinders will finally come off after the full impoverishment of the planet. Maybe at that time, the privatized financial system will finally be given the boot. Maybe.

How is it "privatized"? What do you mean by that?

What we really need to do is eliminate the Federal Reserve and have sound money that cannot be manipulated. Isn't THAT at the heart of the problem? What is wrong with that idea?

. .Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote Art:

The Great Depression bottomed out in March 1933. Then there was steady and impressive growth in GDP until 1937, when FDR succumbed to a freak-out over the defecit and responded by cutting New Deal programs. The ensuing recession was deep and severe, but nowhere near the earlier Depression. FDR had no problem understanding the dynamics and reversed his policy until June, 1938. That was when the Depression ended for sure.

The charts are clear. Unfortunately, the Von Mises acolytes don't believe in charts or graphs or tables. There's no real way to have a discussion about these matters.

Oh, really? The Great Depression ended in 1938? That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard. GDP is an extremely poor indicator of economic growth. Let me ask you a direct question. Why is it that Ludwig Von Mises predicted that monetary manipulation and a "boom" in the roaring twenties would be followed by a catestrophic collapse and he was absolutely correct when few others were? Did you know that John Maynord Keynes lost a fortune in the stock market because he couldn't see the problems coming?

Why don't you ask yourself what causes recessions and depressions in the first place. In my view, the Austrian economists are the only ones to offer a coherent theory about the cause of economic downturns. See Mises' Theory of the Business Cycle.

Did you know that in 1920 we had another Depression? In that case we didn't use Keynesian intervention and "stimulus" and instead allowed the market to correct and debt to be liquidated. The recovery was rapid. We went back to work and in about a year the Depression was over. This is proof that the Austrian solution of allowing liquidation of debt is more effective than Keynesian stimulus. And we don't have to go into huge debt to do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard. GDP is an extremely poor indicator of economic growth.

Really!! Perhaps you can provide an alternative objective measure that better describes the presence or absence of a catastrophic recession.

Why is it that Ludwig Von Mises predicted that monetary manipulation and a "boom" in the roaring twenties would be followed by a catestrophic collapse and he was absolutely correct when few others were?

I just don't know. There have been seers and prophets in many different religions.

Did you know that John Maynord Keynes lost a fortune in the stock market because he couldn't see the problems coming?

And this proves . . . what?

Why don't you ask yourself what causes recessions and depressions in the first place.

I prefer to ask credible economists and historians. Many encyclopedias have good answers for this. Even Wikipedia has a good explanation. This Investipedia article tells us that the chief cause is inflation. Such inflation is not necessariy present in consumer goods. Sometimes, the inflation takes place strictly in stock market prices. this was the case in 2000, and , of course, it was real estate and the stock market in 2007. 1929 was probably caused solely by inflation in the stock market.

Did you know that in 1920 we had another Depression?

Did you know that there were a couple of dozen major recessions between the Civi War and 1929? (The one in 1920 was quite mild compared to the others). The period of the late 19th and early 20th century was the last time when the Austrian school enjoyed some popularity.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I see that once again members have conveniently wandered away from the topic: Ron Paul and racism.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm

OK. Ron Paul and racism. I don't know if the guy is racist or not. There are several possible explanations for the newsletter remarks. There are some very racist towns in his district. I think Beaumont and one other that I've heard. Defacto Jiom Crow there. Could be he has some racist benefactors he doesn't want to betray.

He's not going to be President. so does it matter?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote jrodefeld:
Quote Phaedrus76:First off, if Rep. Paul cannot handle a CNN hack asking about a newsletter that had his name on it, how can he stand up to Putin? The newsletter ran under Dr. Ron Paul's name. He was responsible for it, and all content. Further, he, like Gov. Wallace likely is not a racist. But, like Gov. Wallace, Dr. Paul understood his voters, and knew he would lose if he got "out niggered". It is a Gov. Wallace term, look it up. Which doesn't excuse Dr. Paul, it damns him moreso. Knowing that blaming lazy blacks, or illegals, to fan the flames of hatred and bigotry for political victory, if he didn't even hold those beliefs speaks to much deeper, calculated evil than just the excuse of social norms of his youth. Next, Dr. Paul's economic freedom is the freedom of extreme poverty, serfdom of the masses, and bringing widespread homelessness for abandoned children. Visit Columbia, Sudan or Brazil, or India for examples.

This is all complete nonsense. What do you mean Ron Paul "couldn't handle" the CNN interview? If you had done any research whatsoever, you would know that what CNN aired was a highly edited video of the Borger interview that suggested that Dr Paul couldn't handle the heat and fled from questioning. This was a carefully orchestrated smear and blatant propaganda on CNN's part.

The unedited interview was released recently and it told a far different picture. Far from fleeing from tough questioning, the interview lasting more than 8 minutes and was over when Dr Paul took off his microphone and walked away. In the course of that interview a number of questions were asked, and some variation on the same question about the newsletters was asked and answered at least three times. Look at this interview yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLonnC_ZWQ0&feature=youtu.be

Does that strike you as someone who "couldn't handle" Gloria Borger, an avowed political hack? Can you see how CNN edited that interview to give an entirely different impression to the viewer? Whether or not you find Paul's explanations credible, I think you all should condemn the horrible media bias and propaganda that is being put out.

...

Many websites have suggested that during that period of time, in a small segment of the libertarian movement, there was an orchestrated plan to branch out and try to appeal to a broader coalition. In a very misguided and cynical step, some individuals decided to appeal to right wing constituents on social issues. This was a big devide among libertarians at the time, with most arguing that this betrayed the progressive liniage of the "classical liberal" tradition. Many interviews with Paul at the time prove that he rejected this approach and never condoned such behavior. This "strategy" of appealing to David Duke types over cultural issues was abandoned by the mid 90s. Even those involved at the time have expressed deep regret and have moderated their views in the years since.

But the truth was that Dr Paul was the figurehead of most libertarian groups at the time due to his extensive writings and higher profile. It was almost unavoidable that he would become associated with this strategy that he strongly condemned. Add to this, the fact that he was retired and working in medicine full time and I think it is easy to see why a low circulation newsletter published by his company "Ron Paul and Associates", but not overseen by Paul, could have some of this material published without his knowledge.

The 1995 interview that others on this thread have ludicrously claimed proves he knew about and condoned this material, in actuality makes Paul seem more credible. The material that he was aware of was dry economic literature advocating the gold standard and reforms in monetary policy. The writings that Paul has been directly involved with throughout his career have always been very technical and philosophical in nature.

The larger point is if negligence during this period of time was the greatest failing of Ron Paul's career, what is preventing you from forgiving him and understanding that by comparison, all the other politicians past actions and associations are far more damning? Not only that, but the ACTIONS that Obama or Romney or Gingrich are likely to take will be to sell out this country to the highest bidder. Besides, Ron Paul does not have control over every element of the libertarian movement. If these offending passages don't reflect Ron Paul's views, and nobody really believes they do, then why is it necessary to spend all this time rehashing a story from twenty two years ago?

Setting aside all this, at what point is there too much media coverage? It is not unjustified to vet and candidate. But for the media to be completely aware of a story and just sit on it until Paul becomes a threat to win in Iowa and New Hampshire and then run the story 24/7 for weeks, is that not absolutely propaganda and poor journalism? Especially when the media itself has been so dishonest in reporting the story. It is certainly calculated to hurt Ron Paul, rather than to inform the public.

The story should be this: There were newsletters that were associated with Ron Paul's name that contained some offensive paragraphs. They were not written by Ron Paul but he was the publisher. He denies writing them or reading them at the time and completely disowns their content.

Thats the story. Now once people have heard that, they will either believe Ron Paul's explanation or they won't. There is nothing more to tell on this story. What do you expect Ron Paul to do? For years he has disowned these newsletters and admitted that he was not aware of the offensive content (which really comprised at most 1% of the letters) and he has accepted moral responsibility for not providing greater oversight at the time. There is really nothing more than can be said on the subject.

Now, don't you think its fair to also inform the viewers about his solutions for today's problems? He has economic policies that will deal with the debt and reform our monetary system. He wants to cut our military and restore civil liberties and curtail the power of the Executive branch. He has decades of writings that were unquestionably authored by him that can be discussed and people can know about them.

So, seriously, what do you expect from him? Is there any explanation or speech that would satisfy you? Do you think its fair in any sense that 90% of the news stories about Paul for the next three weeks will be centered around these old newsletters rather than his solutions to current economic problems that are affecting people in profound ways?

All I ask on this forum is that you guys defend your positions and express your views coherently and don't run away from a debate. For example the statement: "Dr. Paul's economic freedom is the freedom of extreme poverty, serfdom of the masses, and bringing widespread homelessness for abandoned children." is patently absurd and filled with extreme hyperbole. This type of rhetoric is usually employed when a person is unable to discuss the issue in much depth and resorts to extreme generalizations.

So, please, defend that statement. I am interested in hearing why you believe economic liberty and the marketplace lead to extreme poverty when the extent of recorded history seems to indicate the exact opposite. It is in fact Socialist and Authoritarian societies that engender poverty and hopelessness. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it. Don't shy away from debate.

First the issue is, these highly racist views Dr. Paul published worked to enrich the man, and propel his career at a time when the Southern Strategy could be done without the internet to put these newsletters in front of every voter who wants to be informed. The ability for a candidate to have very different and conflicting stances is very difficult today, much less 30 years ago. Back then Dr. Paul pucblished undder his name very racist articles, for 12 years or longer. He either did this with full knowledge, or he discovered after the fact. If after the fact, who was the writer? Dr. Paul at the least has covered for the racist. The reality is Dr. Paul is responsible for what he published, I realize his Revotutionaries want to ignore these as old stories. But they are fair game.

Second, what prevents me from forgiving him? The fact that the man benefitted politically and economically from his racist screeds, but apparently didn't believe them tells us that he calculated that the benefit from stoking the demonic furnaces of hatred and bigotry was greater than any possible future electoral cost. That fanning those flames and putting peoples' lives at risk, over an issue which he and you tell us now he didn't believe, was of no importance to him, but his political career and personal wealth that he could amass from his racist opinions, or the opinions published under his name, was of far greater importance. JRod, if you could make a buck facilitating child pornography, legally, would you? Of course not, because you probably know it is wrong, and evil. You also would likely refuse to publish the types of racist crap published by Dr. Paul.

As for the my poinit of Dr. Paul's economic freedom, I point directly to Sudan, and Brazil. They have no EPA, no child labor laws, no strong laws protecting workers' unions, no meddlesome Fedrule gubmint workers slapping on red tape. There is your free market. The freedom of poverty for the masses, with no social safety net.

.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote mdhess:

I see that once again members have conveniently wandered away from the topic: Ron Paul and racism.

If you want to make a comment on that topic then do it. I have addressed my views extensively. I find Paul's explanations credible and when coupled with the fact that his entire life and extensive writings have contradicted everything that is found in these newsletters, then I consider this to be an old story that is being used to hurt Ron Paul. There is nothing new that is being put forth. Paul has addressed this issue extensively. Maybe it is fair that he address the subject of racism in general and explain this subject for the voters who haven't heard his past explanations. However, I feel like the media is using this story in unethical ways and for him to spend much time addressing this topic on their terms would detract from reaching the voters on critical issues.

If you have something to say about Ron Paul, then say it. If you think he is a racist, then say it. But remember two things:

First, Ron Paul has tremendous support from black supporters and minorities in general. I'm sure you saw the study that was done that showed Paul doing better than any other Republican among minorities.

Secondly, here are a few videos of grassroots Ron Paul supporters who are black. Listen to how they view this man and why they are so passionate about supporting him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA2ehvB-_Ac&feature=youtu.be

Prodigy of Mobb Deep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE9jLCUu010

DL Hughley: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkVUiaj4C24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha-AIq_iZwY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGnCw95m5DI

Here is Ron Paul making the case that his policies are the best for minorities (PBS debate):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i3EADdr-5AY

Here is what the Austin NAACP chairman has to say about charges of racism against Ron Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OGhv3paNz6U

That is quite a lot to start with. There is plenty more where that came from. But I can assure you that the grassroots events I have attended and the speeches I have been to for Ron Paul have included the most diverse crowds I have ever seen for a politician. There is no way that that black supporters I know would be donating their time and money to Ron Paul's cause if he was a racist. My black friends that support Ron Paul look at the totality of his life and what he stands for, liberty and equality for all. Individual rights rather than group rights. They know he is not a racist and the offensive newsletters are an aberation and cannot be attributed to him.

If you are honest and want to talk about Ron Paul and accuse him of being a racist, then watch those youtube videos and respond. Why do you think all those black supporters feel compelled to support the man with the passion and dedication that they do?

I anticipate your response.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote Art:

OK. Ron Paul and racism. I don't know if the guy is racist or not. There are several possible explanations for the newsletter remarks. There are some very racist towns in his district. I think Beaumont and one other that I've heard. Defacto Jiom Crow there. Could be he has some racist benefactors he doesn't want to betray.

He's not going to be President. so does it matter?

That is an interesting deflection. It seems like you are conceding that the balance of evidence supports my position, so you just say, "He's not going to be president so it doesn't matter". I don't know if Ron Paul can be elected president. I know there are forces stacked against him that make it a challenge. But, he can win Iowa and he can compete very strongly in all the early primary and caucus states. He poll numbers and fundraising indicate that he should have a viable path to the nomination.

Putting aside all these charges of racism and mud slinging, are you really anticipating an election cycle with NO real debate? Do you want to have to choose between Obama and Romney? At least Ron Paul will put forth serious issues and challenge Obama AND the Republican establishment in profound ways.

Doesn't it benefit us all that Ron Paul does as well as he possibly can do? If we simply accept the fact that the "establishment" doesn't want him to win so he won't and we can't do anything about that, it is a sad commentary on the state of our democracy. Even if he doesn't win, if he has a strong showing, he will pave the way for other independent minded candidates to break through next time.

Why not fight for a candidate that offers real change?

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
Quote Phaedrus76:First the issue is, these highly racist views Dr. Paul published worked to enrich the man, and propel his career at a time when the Southern Strategy could be done without the internet to put these newsletters in front of every voter who wants to be informed. The ability for a candidate to have very different and conflicting stances is very difficult today, much less 30 years ago. Back then Dr. Paul pucblished undder his name very racist articles, for 12 years or longer. He either did this with full knowledge, or he discovered after the fact. If after the fact, who was the writer? Dr. Paul at the least has covered for the racist. The reality is Dr. Paul is responsible for what he published, I realize his Revotutionaries want to ignore these as old stories. But they are fair game.

First of all, these newsletters didn't "enrich" the man. His hard work, medical career, books he has authored and speeches he has given have been the things that have "propelled" his career. These newsletters were rather inconsequential in terms of helping Dr Paul in his career.

Furthermore, these were not "racist" newsletters. He had hard money, economic newsletters that published stories about the gold standard and were critical of the Fed. Other newsletters were focused on preparedness and others on the Constitution. The offensive passages accounted for less than 1% of what was published. So, if Dr Paul received a modest income from publishing a newsletter on economic subjects and other non-controversial items, then it is wrong to say that he made money off racist writings.

And yes, the newsletters were published for about twelve years, but the offensive parts were not present for that length of time. Ron Paul had more involvement during the early 80s when the newsletters were started. There was no offensive material present during that time. As Paul says in the 1995 interview, the material he sought to present dealt with Sound Money and technical economic matters. 90% of the truly offensive language was published between 1989 and 1994, during the time that Paul was least active in politics.

Given that Ron Paul had already established his newsletters in years prior, he had no reason to assume that this type of material would be published under his name. But you need to be clear that the offensive material is less than 1% of what was published.

I don't think he is covering for anyone. There were people who were hired and fired who were ghostwriters and I don't know if they could even be located if he tried. Obviously, there were people who were managing the newsletter who were more culpable than Paul, but I don't know what the benefit is to simply "throwing somone under the bus" and finding someone for the media to tear apart.

I feel it is enough to know that Ron Paul was unaware of this material and it goes against everything that he believes.

Quote Phaedrus76:Second, what prevents me from forgiving him? The fact that the man benefitted politically and economically from his racist screeds, but apparently didn't believe them tells us that he calculated that the benefit from stoking the demonic furnaces of hatred and bigotry was greater than any possible future electoral cost. That fanning those flames and putting peoples' lives at risk, over an issue which he and you tell us now he didn't believe, was of no importance to him, but his political career and personal wealth that he could amass from his racist opinions, or the opinions published under his name, was of far greater importance. JRod, if you could make a buck facilitating child pornography, legally, would you? Of course not, because you probably know it is wrong, and evil. You also would likely refuse to publish the types of racist crap published by Dr. Paul.

He did not make any substantial money from these newsletters. Second, he did not make any calculated effort to appeal to racists or anything of the sort. He was not aware of the material until several years after it was published. By the mid 90s, he stopped the publishing of these newsletters.

What do you not understand about the fact that Paul was not aware of this material nor approved it during the time when he was most busy in his medical practice? He has admitted his mistake in failure of oversight and has taken measures to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

I really think that any of us could have something like this happen anytime we trust others. Hindsight is 20/20 and its easy to say that you would never have anything associated with yourself that you disagreed with or found abhorrent, but anytime you lend your name to others or work with ghostwriters and act as a publisher, there is a risk that things you disapprove of could go out under your name.

It's regrettable and I believe that Paul has made it clear that he regrets what happened but there is a reason this has never hurt him politically. The fact is that people know he is a man of substantial integrity and these views are anathema to everything he stands for.

I am convinced that if we were to go through the background of every other candidate and politician in Washington, the past associations and actions of many of them would be so much worse.

I think it is fair to forgive someone for a mistake, particularly one that is decades old. I think that the consistancy and intellectual integrity that Ron Paul has displayed over decades is remarkable by any standard.

Quote Phaedrus76:As for the my poinit of Dr. Paul's economic freedom, I point directly to Sudan, and Brazil. They have no EPA, no child labor laws, no strong laws protecting workers' unions, no meddlesome Fedrule gubmint workers slapping on red tape. There is your free market. The freedom of poverty for the masses, with no social safety net.

You are just remarkably ignorant of economics, no offense. What you fail to understand is that under a libertarian society, there is an extremely necessary and vital function that the government plays. They have to protect people. They have to give us a sound currency and have just laws and fair courts. They have to protect property and enforce contracts. They have to protect the environment and prosecute fraud and corporate crime.

Sudan and Brazil are NOT libertarian societies. Some progressives just love to find any seemingly lawless and chaotic nation on the planet and claim that represents libertarianism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Lets put aside the hyperbole. Libertarians don't want no regulation. They want a better and fairer way to regulate behavior that is consistant with the Constitution and market principles.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 1:24 am
You are just remarkably ignorant of economics, no offense. What you fail to understand is that under a libertarian society, there is an extremely necessary and vital function that the government plays. They have to protect people. They have to give us a sound currency and have just laws and fair courts. They have to protect property and enforce contracts. They have to protect the environment and prosecute fraud and corporate crime.

This is really good news!!!! We haven't heard about any of these functions from any Libertarians I have heard, or how these things would be accomplished without Government "intruding" into somebody's life.

I believe that Progressives do a pretty good job of describing how they think Government should be working. In fact, they do so until they are blue in the face. The Libertarians seem to want to keep their methods a closely held secret. All we hear is "keep Government off our backs". I don't expect to be reading any Von Mises. Perhaps this is where these secrets are held.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Trump Briefs His Buddies at Mar-A-Lago but Not Congress - WHAT?!

Thom plus logo Donald Trump refused to brief the only branch of government that has the power to make war about his attack on Iranian General Soleimani.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system