Anyone that thinks getting rid of the federal reserve and thinks that returning to the gold standard are solid, infallible positions is absolutely nuts.
Agreed, @2, but looking at the current state of the US dollar I can see it having a certain appeal.
Well if you think about it, we, meaning you and I and the rest of the liberal ilk, approve of most of Paul's positions on war, drugs, and freedom, but disagree on his stand on abortion. But, we only agree with Hill-bomba's stance on abortion and want to slap them silly for not taking a harder stance on ending the war on "terror" or drugs. Yet we belittle Paul for having his "kooky" ideas, even though he's one of the few who actually sound like the mean business when speaking about ending the war on terror and drugs. Where's the Dem equivalent? Please show me.
I wonder what Gil Scott-Heron has to say about that.
the current state of the US dollar has little value in determining whether we should change something. making snap judgements for natural cycles is not a good idea. (which is why I oppose the most recent fed cut)
there is a reason we got rid of the gold standard. and there is a reason we put in a federal reserve. and it wasnt just for hoots and hollers.
look at gold prices over the past 30 years. 2 huge spikes but a ~$450 price differential from high to low. yay gold!
the reason gold seems attractive is all psychological (i.e. it doesnt lose it's value) but tell someone that bought gold in 1980. also gold has the same supply and demand issues as any other commodity and currency.
the idea that we could even back the size of our economy with gold reserves is stupid.
as for the federal reserve, I would much rather have 5% inflation a year than volitaile inflation/deflation cycles that averaged 5% per year inflation. inflation isnt a completely bad thing, it is only when it exists in the extreme that it is bad. inflation helps push people to invest money before it loses value. deflation (as almost any japanese person could tell you) is not a good thing for the economy, and inflationary/deflationary trends dont adjust overnight.
his kooky ideas are far worse than his good ones.
@3: Do liberals necessarily want to end the war on terror? I'd like to think that any liberal I'd consider voting for would conduct the war on terror, or whatever you want to call it, in a more logical and effective way than what's been done.
If libertarian ideas appeal to you - and they sure don't to me - then support Ron Paul. Otherwise, I just have a very hard time understanding why anyone would.
He is a nut job, although I really enjoyed that movie...
I would never vote for Paul, I'm just pointing out that his stance is more clear and concise than anything the Dem's a fielding - hence all the support he's fielding by clearly opposing, by his rhetoric, the current war in Iraq/on terror. Abortion rights, kooky ideas on the gold standards, aren't exactly things American's are worried about right now.
to be fair the things we werent worried about seemed to really fuck us in the ass when bush was elected the first time and then went on his war on terror blitz.
He's libertarian lite. Most conservatives want to pay less taxes and do whatever they want. What they can't stand is that then others could do what they wanted, like have abortions. Paul lets them eat their cake and have it too.
@9 - "Clear and concise" views may be a mask for dangerous oversimplification. How can you have a "clear and concise" stance on very complex problems? As Bushism demonstrates, you can't, not if you want your politics to be reality-based. Ron Paul is a wing-nut, a "clear and concise" wing-nut to be sure, but still a wing-nut.
Do any of the people supporting HilDawg understand what she stands for? Does anyone even know what HilDawg stands for other than HilDawg being the next president? By the way, what do the Democrats stand for? Are they against torture? Schumer and Feinstein sure aren't. Are they against the war in Iraq? Who knows? Does the Democratic party stand for anything other than getting more Democrats elected and keeping already elected and completely spineless Democrats in office? You sure wouldn't know it from looking at Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and Feinstein.
Awesome video. Paul is articulate, concise, and humane. Yes, his consistency
comes from a simplistic world view, but if you listen to his interviews it's clear that he advocates gradual reform within the Constitution. He'd push many issues (war, privacy, drugs) in a progressive direction and Congress would check his more extreme ideas. Every other Repug equates manliness with going it alone, torturing, war-mongering, etc. Progressives should do everything they can to help his candidacy. It will keep the focus on issues (where Dems win), not demonization (where they don't), and keep Clinton from sliding rightward on Iraq after the nomination (assuming she gets it).
Honestly, I don't like him, mainly for his positions on abortion, removing governmental regulation, going back to the gold standard, etc., but man, at least I can respect the guy. He says what he actually believes (and his beliefs aren't based on where he's trying to get votes) and he brings up issues (i.e., the failed war on drugs) that no other politician, including the ones I plan on voting for) have the guts to talk about. I'm glad he's at the table.
Where is it written that he's against the drug war? He's only a guns and money libertarian, not a social(drugs, sex, religion, privacy, or free speech).
He raised so much because a sub-section of techno-millionaires never got over Ayn Rand. They down play his stands on every other issue besides the war, because they are repulsive to most of his new supporters.
Free market approach to the environment + pro-life + opposes gun control + gold standard + opposes federally-funded stem cell research + favors privatizing social security = won't be getting my vote.
That being said, if someone put a gun to my head and made me vote in the Republican primary, he would be my choice.
Thatís what more then 40k each giving 100 bucks. As far as I know no other candidate has tried to raise all their money on one day, cuz well, its stupid. Hell I bet other spammers have done the same, though they tend to not openly admit it.
All RonPaul has shown is that he has a small legion of determined followers willing to latch on to what ever nut drones on about how great not having the big bad govíment will be. Thatís something weíve know about libertarians for years. There like a cult.
RonPaul is still at less then 5% in any poll that matters. After January or February he will disappear back to the bowels of Texas to bother us no more. He could raise 100 million and will still lose. He would lose because almost all of his ideas are crazy, appeal to only a few, and largely make no sense.
In related news, Ron Paul is now slated to get slightly more than 1 percent of the vote for GOP nominations, meaning he will only be a third-tier candidate, instead of a fourth-tier candidate.
But that's in this special place we call Reality.
And what does any of this have to do with Guy Fawkes Day?
I disagree vehemently with some of his ideas. But I respect his consistency and absolutism when it comes to Constitutional law. You may disagree with him, but at least he's not a liar and/or equivocator, like all of the other candidates running for president (yep, even Obama). I'm not supporting him by any means, but he's a damn sight better than any of those other Republican candidates. Would you rather he get nomintated or Giuliani? Or that ass-kisser McCain? Or fucking Romney?
He's the best candidate amongst the 'Pubs, so for that reason alone Democrats should support him in my view.
Read today's Glenn Greenwald over at Salon for more:
I'm not really a Paul supporter, though I would be thrilled if he got the Republican nomination, if for no other reason than to force that moribund party to rethink its positions.
That said, in a lot of ways I'd rather have a principled President who has positions I disagree with than yet another mealy-mouthed politician who claims to agree with me on everything from abortion to favorite ice cream flavor, all out of a desire to get elected rather than any kind of coherent philosophy.
So, yeah, a strong states-rights President could spell trouble for Roe v. Wade. But at least then we'd all be arguing about the role of states rights and the federal government rather than whether the Demoblicans are more evil and corrupt than the Republicrats.
Ron Paul has "Content Of Core Character".
One man cannot sweep it all away.
His message is of transition to a more Constitutional form of Government.
Economic Catastrophe is in motion and Nuclear War looms on the horizon. What Is Now Will Not Be For Long.
Business as usual will not suffice. Ron Paul is the only one who will do as he says and curtail the current Runaway Government. (with the help of the people)
Brad, thank you for the excellent demonstration of Random Capitalization As Infallible Kook Sign, And Major Ron Paul Support Characteristic.
On a related note, what are all the LaDouchies doing with their spare cash these days?
I think they're giving it to Ron Paul.
LaRouchies don't have any money, because they already gave it all to him, quit their jobs or school, and work full time for his operation. I dearly hope Ron Paul is draining his people, but in all other matters, Paul is useless.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).