Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Most Watched Primary Debate in... | LA Times Endorses Obama »

Friday, February 1, 2008

You Say You Want A Ron Paul Revolution?

posted by on February 1 at 13:45 PM

By Ryan S. Jackson

He hadn’t come into view yet, but the UW’s Red Square was now roaring the words: “Ron! Paul! Ron! Paul! Ron! Paul!” The crowd, which previously had been milling in little pockets and cliques, suddenly coalesced into a stampede pushing forward, and I felt for a moment like I was going to get knocked over.

Trampled to death at a fucking Ron Paul rally. That would be my obituary, wouldn’t it?

Congressman Paul and his entourage —a pair of University of Washington security guards and his national campaign manager—had just arrived for yesterday’s on-campus rally, and Paul was cheerily autographing signs and assorted pieces of paraphernalia all the way to the landing in front of the student union building where he would be speaking.


He climbed up onto an improvised dais and waived to the crowd. The woman behind me, who had brought her infant with her to event, asked the child in a sing-song voice, “Can you see Doctor Paul? Wave to Doctor Paul!”

Paul hadn’t even started speaking, and this was already utterly surreal.

Ron Paul's event at the University of Washington yesterday had been described in the press release as "Soup With Students." There might well have been soup at one point, but as I was running ten minutes late, by the time I arrived a decidedly soup-less crowd was already waiting outside for the congressman to speak.


I had had expectations for the people coming to the event, and none of them fit. This was a primarily young, diverse, and unnaturally enthusiastic crowd of probably six or seven hundred people. While on the fringes there existed the obvious middle-aged internet political creatures, shuffling nervously while they searched for their comrades, this looked like roughly the same demographic that I had met while covering events for Washington for Obama.

To his credit, Congressman Paul seemed to know exactly what this crowd wanted to hear. His stump speech more or less consists of the following points:

-The Constitution is still pretty fantastic.

-The government can't legislate virtue.

-Bring the troops home now, from everywhere.

That's possibly an overly glib assessment of the man's deeply held beliefs, but the unshakable feeling you get while listening to him talk is as though you're watching Rock n' Roll High School. The government just wants to keep you down, children, but Doctor Paul wants you to rock! Smoke all the pot you want, and while we're at it, let's burn down the IRS!


And it wasn't just the prospect of drug reform and a drawing down of the US military that got cheers. A brief jaunt into inflation and monetary policy drew thunderous applause. Were they really going to go nuts for the gold standard? By the time Paul rose to a crescendo with, "This is not a Ron Paul revolution, this is your revolution!", the crowd wasn't so much enthusiastic as it was uncomfortably frenzied.

As Paul finished and slowly made his way back inside, I waded through the crowd to try to reach the person whose sign had been nagging me throughout the whole event. It read in huge block letters, “Ron Paul Stole My <3.” I wanted to talk to this person.


The sign belonged to Christy Nieto, 33 of Bellingham. She stood with a group of people she described as “the posse”: all young-ish, one of her friends holding a dueling sign with the words “Ron Paul Is A True Hero.” She asked if I would hold her sign so she could take a picture of me with it.

I declined politely.

Christy was there yesterday for a lot of reasons, the Federal Reserve being a big one.

“The Federal Reserve, like Federal Express, is not a government agency. It was started by the Rothchilds and the Rockefellers. You can learn about it by watching ‘Money Masters’ on home video.”


Other than secret oligarch banking concerns, Christy was also drawn to the more traditional Paul platform points of isolationist military policy and abolishing the IRS.

Also amongst “the posse” was one Kevin Burke, another Bellingham native. Kevin, whose clothing choice for the event mixed the finer points of Jim Belushi and The Unabomber, had been drawn to Paul initially in 1988, during the congressman’s run for the presidency as a libertarian.

We had a meandering discussion, and I think he thought I was another lying member of the mainstream media when I told him the Ron Paul Blimp was out of commission. But one thing he told me stood out above the rest:

“[Paul], in my opinion, is a twenty first century version of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Payne, and Patrick Henry, all rolled into one. If those gentlemen were alive today, I could pretty much assure you they would be voting for Ron Paul.”

RSS icon Comments


And Kerry was on campus today, too!

Posted by Non | February 1, 2008 1:52 PM

And this is why I am wary of any candidate that gets so much support from students.

Posted by boxofbirds | February 1, 2008 2:01 PM

These people are fucking insane. Seriously. I'm not naive enough to believe that Clinton or Obama (or McCain) are going to deliver revolutionary change, but going to a gold standard, abolishing the IRS, adopting a completely isolationist stance, and pretty much eliminating everything but the police and military would cause the U.S. as a country to cease to exist.

Posted by bma | February 1, 2008 2:04 PM

It's cool that he likes the Constitution and doesn't like the war. Unfortuntely, he has a few other positions, too.

* Abolish the EPA and let property owners do whatever they want, environment be damned.

* Ban abortion

* Guns, guns, guns, no matter what.

* And a lot of other right-wing, John Birch Society stuff.

Liberal Paultards are purposely focusing on only half his message. It's a sad statement about education today that this willful ignorance seems based around the UW campus.

A prof friend of mine once referred to this phenomenon as "Militant Ignorance." That sums it up, I think.

Posted by Ole | February 1, 2008 2:06 PM

i hope he declares an independant run for the presidency.

please, dr. paul, tear apart the GOP.

Posted by max solomon | February 1, 2008 2:07 PM

my favorite thing about libertarians is they usually have no fucking clue what their party actually stands for. what's scary is these days there seem to be a lot more libertarians out there dragging their knuckles around.

Posted by kinkos | February 1, 2008 2:14 PM

Where do you retards do your research? Jeez, you'd think you could have gotten at least ONE of his platforms correct. Why not click on my name - that'll take you to his website. You CAN read, can't you? I mean you can type so that presupposes you're making words or else an incredible cooincidence is happening. Go there, read and be enlightened - because every position you've attributed to Dr. Paul is a lie. You're just mad because you want to steal from me to give lazy people welfare and encourage poor people to remain poor.

Posted by Louis Nardozi | February 1, 2008 2:16 PM

yes, poor people want to remain poor. how can we forget such wonderful conservative newspeak?

on the other hand, not to worry - if hillary is elected, then she can at least deliver the screw-the-poor welfare reform part of the ron paul platform for the old nutty windbag.

Posted by kinkos | February 1, 2008 2:25 PM

Oh please. Don't limit yourself to his official website, where he plays up the stuff you like. Just take a listen to his own words, in this radio interview, where he opposes abortion, calls for property rights as the best way to take care of the environment, and says we should never limit gun ownership.

If you're going to embrace the guy, LISTEN to what he's saying. The common good is about more than just protecting your ****** money!

Posted by Ole | February 1, 2008 2:27 PM
Posted by Ole | February 1, 2008 2:28 PM

I wonder how many of the students in attendance at this rally are at UW thanks in part to federally financed loans and grants from the Department of Education. Did he talk about his plan to abolish that today, or would that have been in poor taste at a public university where $160 million of federal money a year gets distributed among students based on need?

Posted by matthew e | February 1, 2008 2:41 PM

I waived to the jury once.

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | February 1, 2008 2:45 PM

From the point of view of a progressive whom is considering voting for Paul, I would like to add a little perspective. I realize the federal government has done some good in the past, like the civil rights bill. On the other hand, any one not blinded by party partisanship should open their eyes to the fact that our War on Drugs and Terror has produced both the biggest prison system and standing military our planet has ever been subjected to, and with truly horrifying results. Liberals whine about Paul’s stance on the environment, when he wants to end the War in Iraq, and close down every US military base around the planet. Digest this with the fact that if the US military was an actual country, it would be number 3 in oil consumption. Also keep in mind that both Obama and Clinton want to EXPAND the military. There is nothing more destructive to the environment than the US war machine.

Posted by . . . . | February 1, 2008 2:45 PM

I waived to the jury once.

Posted by BELMONT PLACE | February 1, 2008 2:46 PM

There was no IRS from 1776 to 1913 either. Did that give any problems? No, not at all. Just because you prefer to do things the way they always have been done does not mean it is the best way. The fact that students back Ron Paul is an indicator that intellect is backing Ron Paul.

What would be bad about having a gold standard? The fact that your money is actually more than just the equavalent of toiletpaper? Many just say what they have been told by others without having any arguments to back up their opinions except for: "I just don't like it." This is politics. Leave your emotions at the door. This is not an episode of the "Bold and the beautiful". It is much more important than that.

In addition to that Ron Paul did not say to ban abortion, but felt States should decide for themselves what to do about it if they felt it necessary. It would ultimately be the responsibility of the woman who has chosen for abortion.

There is no gun promotion either. Just the freedom to choose.

The constitution is all about having the freedom to choose without others imposing their will on you as a citizen.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 2:47 PM

My assessment is that anyone who refers to the candidate in question as "Dr. Paul" should be ignored.

Posted by ghostlawns | February 1, 2008 2:48 PM

@11: He certainly has mentioned that in front of student groups--it was mentioned in the Stranger article from last August. He made his case for it. I don't personally agree, but at least he didn't skirt the issue (on that day. I don't know what he talked about today).

Posted by Lauren | February 1, 2008 2:50 PM

Its kind of sad to see that many people duped by a racist conspiracy nut. Paul is an opportunist plain and simple.

Posted by Giffy | February 1, 2008 2:52 PM

There was no IRS from 1776 to 1913.
We didn't have a national highway administration either. Welcome to the 21st century. A modern states needs an organized means of raising funds. I'll takes todays government and society over the one we had pre-WW1 any day.

The fact that students back Ron Paul is an indicator that intellect is backing Ron Paul.
It looked like a fair chuck of the people there were not students. Regardless most students back Obama.

What would be bad about having a gold standard?
The deflation for one. Couple that with no ability to have a functioning monetary policy and that’s a recipe for economic disaster.

In addition to that Ron Paul did not say to ban abortion, but felt States should decide for themselves what to do about it if they felt it necessary. It would ultimately be the responsibility of the woman who has chosen for abortion.
That would mean that for many woman the choice would be made for them. Not to mention that I want abortion legal in every state, not just some. I’m an American first and a Washingtonian second.

There is no gun promotion either. Just the freedom to choose.
I’m not in favor of banning all guns, but regulation is a good thing.

The constitution is all about having the freedom to choose without others imposing their will on you as a citizen.
Partly. Buts its also about having a functioning society. Sorry but a document written 250 years ago needs to be reinterpreted from time to time. It’s the principles that are important not the literal meaning.

Posted by Giffy | February 1, 2008 3:00 PM

Giffy, there is nothing that Ron Paul says that is racist. Absolutely nothing. Do not start to spread that propaganda. I am sure that Joseph Goebbels would be proud of you, but this is not the place for that.

If I would be bank and I would lend the society 100 dollars at 1% interest per year the society would have to pay me 101 dollars at the end of the year. However since it is illegal to print money, it means that I as a bank am the only one in power able to create any money. So people have to pay 101 dollar while it is theoretically impossible to pay 101 dollars since there are no trees on which money grows! Instead real assets are seized by the bank that are worth more than mere toiletpaper. It is a matter of basic maths.

In reality the situation is a bit more complex since some citizens would preform better than others. Those who will preform well will be able to pay the interest, but the poor preformers cannot pay that. Have you ever seen how much a dollar was worth in the nineteenhundreds? The value keeps dropping since this interest on the money can NEVER be paid! Government debt was first million which became billions and now even trillions over time.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 3:02 PM

whenever i see ron paul, i envision the world as portrayed in the movie idiocracy - a bunch of perpetually masturbating babbling idiots who repeat what they're told not so much because they know what they're saying but instead because it makes them think they look like they actually might be able to read something more challenging than the picture menu at mcdonalds.

if we have another 8 years of conservative terror, though, i would not be surprised if the collective intellectual might of Our Great Country is reduced well beyond idiocracy levels. so in other words, pray for mccain or romney to win, because it's ron paul's exhumed corpse taking the white house in 2016!

Posted by kinkos | February 1, 2008 3:04 PM

@20: Dude, you're not tracking at all. Put down that Paul banner and take your meds.

Posted by J.R. | February 1, 2008 3:08 PM

@20 "preform"? Ah. It's mean to make fun of consistent spelling errors and bad grammar....

Banks don't print money. That second paragraph isn't in any way shape or form a logical argument. It's not even based on logic.

It's not even based on simple economics.

@Paultards in public universities

You do realize that if Ron Paul had the presidency, your school wouldn't exist, right? Nor would your loans, grants, work-study, etc.

Posted by GrrrPaultards | February 1, 2008 3:09 PM

@20, I've read his newsletters so I beg to differ. To be fair that might be more opportunism then racism. In the 80's and 90's Paul played to the southern militia types. Today he plays to a different group of conspiracy theories.

And inflation is not interest, nor is money limited to its physical supply. The money I have deposited in the bank can be lent out to others to do economic work. More transactions, more assets, more growth, and more investment, all grow the economy. The fed makes this all possible. A part is keeping inflation (which spurs investment) at a reasonable level. Not zero, but not to high.

The system has been working for going on 5 or 6 decades now and has been working quite well. Is it complex sure, but take a look around. People in this country are living better then they ever have, and we honestly have less real stratification then we did before the world wars in that heyday of commodity currency.

Posted by Giffy | February 1, 2008 3:13 PM

What would be bad about having a gold standard?
"The deflation for one. Couple that with no ability to have a functioning monetary policy and that’s a recipe for economic disaster."

Must be awful to have deflation. In the recent years the lifesavings of America have more than halved due to the dropping value of the American dollar. Must be terrible to have your money become worth more.

A gold standard does not mean you have no monetary policy. It means that the value is far more constant and reliable. It means no boom and bust cycles. It means that others countries would support the US dollar again since they are confident that there is real value backing the dollar instead of changing their US dollar positions for euros. The key element of the gold standard is however to make sure that there is no inflation OR deflation. It allows the economy to run smoother since the risk management needed by companies is reduced greatly.

How can all this be a recipy for disaster? Currently the US wealth is dropping like a rock. Many are losing their houses. Is this not the recipe for disaster? Watch for many more disclosures and you will notice that you already have the recipe for disaster. The recipe for success is what is coveted though. Recipes for disaster can be found everywhere.

Explain what makes a gold standard a recipe for disaster? Words without solid arguments behind them do not cut it.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 3:21 PM

I believe the TV commerical I saw today urging me to vote for Ron Paul went something like "Ron Paul loves guns, and so should you. Vote for Ron Paul"...

nuff said.

Posted by SDizzle | February 1, 2008 3:24 PM

@25, I suppose your right if American kept their life savings under the mattress or in a no-interest checking account. However if they had that money in bonds, CDs, stock, real estate, commodities, or even a fucking savings account, they would be out ahead.

In fact inflation encourages people to do such things making money available for investment resulting in growth.

As for the negative effects of a gold standard. Look to the great Depression. The fed was not able to increase the money supply as current law required a partial backing by gold.

Our current money is based essentially on the US economy. Its more complex then that, buts what it boils down to. The fed buys and sells treasury bonds, increasing and decreasing the money supply. This gives them the ability to execute a monetary policy. Tying the currency to an artificial anchor prevents that.

The gold standard is just a fancy form of using shells for money.

Posted by Giffy | February 1, 2008 3:30 PM

@25, I would add that even if a system were able to eliminate both inflation and deflation that would not be a good thing at all. It would decrease the incentive to invest and increase hoarding. It would also make it much much harder to get credit causing problems for businesses and consumers.

Posted by Giffy | February 1, 2008 3:33 PM

@25: Sentences arranged in random order don't cut it either.

Posted by J.R. | February 1, 2008 3:43 PM

I know that inflation is not the same as interest. Inflation of the money supply is what causes the inflation so in that sense it is related to each other. Many say that America is at its height of power and that citizens never have had it better. The Canadian dollar is worth more than the US dollar at this point. Many Americans do not go to Europe on holiday anymore since it is "too expensive". Sounds very wealthy.... Some say that the way it is currently set up without gold backing the US dollar is better since it allows for better "growth". Yes, your money supply has grown to incredible heights. Have you seen the news lately? Amazing how much money the Federal Reserve is pumping into the economy to keep the financial institutions afloat. The money supply has grown, but not your wealth. When George Bush became president gold was in the 250 dollar range. It is in the 900 dollar range now. All this growth sounds fine, but the fact is that in not too many years the Turkey stock market has risen 2 200 000%. Amazing!! No, actually not amazing at all. It is just inflation. They print so much money that everything goes up. Just because the US stockmarket stays afloat does not mean there is no danger. The money the Federal Reserve is injecting is keeping it up. Otherwise it would drop like a rock. The point I am trying to make is that everything is not going so well as many imagine and it will get a lot worse in 2008 and 2009. Your money loses value, because others have the power to create it out of thin air. That is the real problem. If you would like to keep the full value of everything you earn you should back a gold standard. Many people with pensions will find that their pensions will give them the standard of living they hoped for.

There is another way to look at the US economy by comparing export to import. It shows that the US has become a service economy which imports far more goods than they export. Part of that is 25% of the world's energy need. This cannot be sustained and will come down like a house of cards. You can only lend so much before you crumble under the weight. The only thing that can be done is trying to solve the problem now or wait until the severity is equal to that of 1929. Ever wondered how that happened in the first place?

Growth of money that is backed by nothing is fake wealth.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 3:46 PM

What would happen to the state university system if Dr. Paul was elected? Where would these students go? Maybe they'd become some of those poor who want to stay poor.

Fucking students. Taking my money and using it on their education/welfare complex.

Posted by Dr. Paul gave me an abortion!!!! | February 1, 2008 3:49 PM

Ron Paul's friends used to care enough to post in all caps, and were too proud to use punctuation or sentences. Or paragraphs. Now it's like not even worth it to them any more, and in that sense, we've all lost something we used to take for granted.

Posted by elenchos | February 1, 2008 3:58 PM

Ahhh, to be young again and think libertarianism would work...

#15, so paper money is toilet paper, yet gold is somehow more than just a shiny rock?

Posted by w7ngman | February 1, 2008 4:09 PM


If you cut spending the way Ron Paul suggests, you would hardly have to pay any taxes in the first place. Imagine how much money that would save you. Just calculate how much the average student would save by having to pay so much less later on in life and you will realize they would be better off. are not poor yet, but you will be soon enough with the impending crash. Canada might now be ahead of dollar in value, but it will not remain limited to just Canada. Many other countries will surge ahead of the US as well. Many would have laughed a couple of years ago about that. "Hahaha, the Canadian dollar worth more than the US dollar? You're crazy!!" And yet, it did happen. Much more will happen as well. It might be best to come of those high horses to fix the problems while it is still possible. There is a clear reason for the dropping value of the dollar. Are you going to play a part in fixing it or do you just pretend that there is no problem at all?

A decade ago the US economy seemed to be doing very well and the international esteem of the US was much higher than it is today. Much has changed, but with hard work we can rebuild what has been destroyed. That implies that it is not wise to continue the same path that got you here in the first place.

Just to be clear: I'm not even American or live in America. The entire world economy is connected and if some countries do badly all will do badly in the end. America plays internationally an enormous role and thus what takes place in the US affects many for those that are wondering why I would even reply when not being a US citizen. Many other countries simply are not so lucky as the US is by having such an excellent candidate. This can be seen from the international support that Ron Paul is receiving from all over the world.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 4:13 PM


In essence you are right that it does not matter whether you have paper money or the shiny rock (gold).

Gold supplies cannot easily be inflated which assures it has a certain value. In addition to that gold has some properties which make it very valuable to certain industries, but in essence this argument can be ignored.

It is just a matter of trust. That is what it all comes down to. If certain parties cannot be trusted with keeping the value of your money constant then a gold standard would be preferable. That is why gold is currently preferable to fiat money.

Just compare the dollar to gold and see what you have lost by not backing your dollars with gold. Other countries did not experience such a drop of their currency's value.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 4:29 PM

And so here you are JC... it's nice you care about Freedom. Please tell me if you mean free as in beer, or free as in freedom so I can write you off with RMS...

Your long strings of words have make quite an argument. Tell me, good sir, what do you think of the bill he sponsored entitled "H.R. 300 - We the People Act". I'm most curious to your thoughts on what, exactly, Section 3 is to accomplish?

Here, since you are a paultard and they do not make youtube videos of house bills, I'll even quote you the section:


The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 4:31 PM

"Ron Paul did not say to ban abortion, but felt States should decide for themselves what to do about it if they felt it necessary. It would ultimately be the responsibility of the woman who has chosen for abortion."

"nothing that Ron Paul says that is racist."

Militant ignorance...a fitting description of JC. Good call Ole.

Posted by Jon | February 1, 2008 4:45 PM


Thanks for posting that.

In summary: The Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that state sodomy laws are unconstitutional. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, Ronpaul introduced and sponsored a bill to re-allow state sodomy laws.

The We the People Act basically means states no longer have to follow the Bill of Rights when it comes to issues Paul doesn't like. It to some extent invalidates separation of church and state on the state level as well as allowing states to ban abortion and any sexual practices they want.

Posted by Jocelyn | February 1, 2008 4:55 PM

Hello CRK,

My take on what Section 3 is supposed to accomplish is the protection of the freedom of religion, privacy, marriage and sexuality. Ron Paul makes an attempt to make sure that the state will not override the basic principles of the constitution by means of the courts.

In my opinion this is very important since the majority of people will otherwise force their behaviour and their ideas onto the minorities. The key element of the constitution can be described as "live and let live". Whatever you do is fine as long as others within the community are not harmed by it in any way. Physically or mentally. Its ultimate goal is to provide a perfect environment for personal development. This personal development of citizens will then ultimately add great value to the society. Any restraint on personal freedom will hold back this personal development and thus will reduce the value that a person will be able to add to society.

Keep in mind that this is my personal opinion only. It is however substantiated by psychological research.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 5:00 PM

Ron Paul is in favor of sound money, not the gold standard. I'd be willing to bet my left nut that the majority of you don't even know the real reason the gold standard failed in the first place. I'll give you a hint, it's called fractional banking, and was a result of inflating the dollar well beyond it's worth, and then realizing that you could buy up the entire countries reserves with only like 20% of the money. To keep it from happening, they took us off the gold standard, rather than fixing the problem of fractional banking, which is fraud btw if anyone other than the fed did it.

The fed, along with the excessive and corrupt spending of the politicians has killed the value of the dollar. It's pretty to easy to understand. If there is $100 in the world, and you have $10, you own 10% of the wealth. Common math. If there are a total of 20 apples in the world, by default each apple has a value of $5. You have the purchasing power to buy a total of 2 apples. Simple economics.

Now, if the fed comes in and adds another $100. And you still have your $10, there is now $200 in circulation. You now only own 5% of the wealth. Also, since there are still only 20 apples, each of those apples now costs $10 each, and you can only buy 1. You just lost half your purchasing power because a private bank created money out of thin air. This is called inflation, it's a invisible tax on peoples wealth. It benefits those who get the new money(the corporations who get the contracts). They get your wealth, and they just keep feeding themselves over and over.

This is why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Straight up. You look at the price of goods going up, this is why. And it hurts the poor the most, and people on fixed income the most, the people we claim to be helping. Because when the price of goods goes up, they do not get extra income to cover it. They get poorer, and they hurt the most.

The only thing the other candidate argue about is how gets the new money. Thats it. Ron Paul is the only candidate standing up against it, and that is why he is censored.

So if you want to get rid of corruption, then you need to take away the source of the corruption, and that comes from the power to manipulate the countries money supply and steal as much wealth as they want without the people even noticing it.

Wake up, your being robbed blind.

Posted by badmedia | February 1, 2008 5:07 PM

"Growth of money that is backed by nothing is fake wealth".

Paulistas are the stupidest fucking people on the face of the earth. Seriously -- they make Naderites look like sober, rational citizens. They make Scientologists look like scientists.

Our money is backed by the economy of the United States -- the biggest economy in the history of the world. Every other economy works the same way. If you don't understand that, you're plumb crazy. Backing money with gold is a premodern idea, about as sensible as going back to horses to power transportation. You want to live in 1913? Do you have any idea how poor you, and everyone else in the world, would be in that kind of economy?

Posted by Fnarf | February 1, 2008 5:24 PM

JC, you are so wrong it hurts my eyes. Either you dont know anything about the US (possible since you admitted you dont live here) or you didn't read what I pasted for you.

"Ron Paul makes an attempt to make sure that the state will not override the basic principles of the constitution by means of the courts."


Since you support Ron Paul, I can assume you have limited abilities so I'll make this full of simple little nuggets

"The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--"

That means the highest court of the land.

"(1) shall not adjudicate--"

That means they make decisions on any of the the following:

"(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;"

That means the federal court is prohibited from making rulings about State law regarding religion.

"(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or"

That means the federal courts cannot make rulings for cases regarding sexual rights.

"(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and"

That means the federal courts cannot make rulings regarding gay marrage.

"(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1)."

That means the federal court cannot use past rulings regarding these issues to make a decision.

So, JR, in your brain damaged mind, I'm curious how you arrived at the *exact opposite* of what his bill says? There is an even bigger doozy this guy tried to pull through the house, but I'm a bit lazy to look it up and quite frankly, I'm sure you will somehow rationalize this with kool-aid anyway.

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 5:29 PM


Thank you for your response. I did however give you an example of the Turkey stockmarket in a previous post which showed that the 2,2 million percent growth of the stockmarket did not represent pure wealth, but mere inflation.

The main reason in the past for the inflated value of the dollar was the need for other countries to have dollars to buy oil since oil was traded all over the world only in dollars. That is changing now as can be seen by the willingness of other countries to dump their dollars and take euros instead. So in this example value of the dollar does not represent the strength of the US economy either.

Growth of the money supply and growth of the economy are two entirely different things. My point is that the money supply should not be artificially inflated. This is all due to "Fractional Reserve Banking". If you do not understand the term I would advise you to find information on it first before starting any argument.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 5:41 PM

#35, the point I was driving at is that paper money can be kept just as stable as gold. The attitude I get from a lot of pro-gold standard types is that the Fed is somehow inherently evil. It is not. The Fed, managed properly, creates stability and encourages growth. Just because the Fed has printed too much money (arguable) doesn't make the Fed itself a bad idea.

And recently, why are they printing more money? Because Ron Paul's current colleagues are reckless spenders and have to fund billions of dollars in war spending. Think about that for a moment before blaming the Fed.

I also think you are wrong on HR 300. You've got it backwards, actually. The way I read it, it limits federal courts from ruling on decisions related to points A, B, and C. Meaning, if the highest court in a state (as in the 50 states, not as in Secretary of State) rules on points A, B, or C (one way or the other!) then you cannot appeal that decision to a Federal court because HR 300 strips them of jurisdiction on those matters.

The problem is that some of these are protected in constitutional amendments.

It seems to me part A does not pose a problem because the first amendment only prohibits *Congress* from establishing religion, etc. So if a state establishes a religion (like Ron Paul's state, Texas, did), that unfortunately does not violate the first amendment.

Part B effectively overturns Roe v. Wade. Whether a right to "privacy" is actually in the constitution is up for debate so I'll let that one slide.

Part C is just fucked up. Not only does it prohibit the Supreme Court from upholding the 14th amendment (which unlike the 1st amendment, *does* limit the power of the states), it specifically denies rights based on sexual orientation! What it means is that if a gay couple appeals to the Supreme Court because their state has denied them equal protection under the law (benefits of "marriage" under some interpretations, for example), the the Supreme Court cannot rule in their favor! In fact, it cannot rule at all! To say this protects freedom of sexuality is just plain backwards. The only freedom it is protecting is the freedom of state legislatures to violate the 14th amendment.

Posted by w7ngman | February 1, 2008 5:43 PM

And just incase he wasn't crazy enough, I'll post one of my more favorite bills he ran through the congress. Good old H. R. 3216:


This Act may be cited as the `Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007'.


The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.


No letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued by the President under this Act without requiring the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President shall determine is sufficient to ensure that the letter be executed according to the terms and conditions thereof.

And for the Paultards, who by nature of their brain damage cannot research, I'll paste a definition:

Letter of Marque:
"The papers a government issues to privateers granting permission to attack, take by force and return the goods from enemy merchant ships."

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 5:50 PM

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The most important part of this is: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". So based on that it means that all forms of freedom listed in the constitution cannot be changed by States OR courts in combination with HR 300. Many of the issues regarding marriage and sexuality could be placed under the First Amendment and would fall under the freedom of expression.

So it is not negative at all what Ron Paul is suggesting. He is a constitutionalist and would refer to the constitution in every case when something is unclear.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 6:13 PM

Hahaha, "air piratical"

I'm going to have to start using that one.

So basically, the bill allows the president to put a bounty on Osama? Didn't they do that anyway?

Posted by w7ngman | February 1, 2008 6:13 PM

Gold? You've got to be kidding! Is there any reason why we would want to hand over the monetary policy of our country to South Africa and Russia (the largest producers)? The idiocy of some people never ceases to amaze . . . .

Posted by kk | February 1, 2008 6:14 PM

By the way, crk, I don't know if you just started posting, but keep it up. I've just recently been noticing your comments and I have appreciated all of them. They are thoughtful, relevant, and I've thoroughly enjoyed your input.

Being a Slog comment, that probably seemed extremely sarcastic, but it wasn't.

P.S. bellevue ave east here :)

Posted by w7ngman | February 1, 2008 6:20 PM

Hi crk on bellevue ave,

Is there anything in H.R. 3216 that you have specific issues with except for the entertaining language that was used?

Hi kk,

We would not exactly be handing over monetary policy since we (Europe and the United States) plundered most of the wealth of Africa and other continents in the past anyway. Much of that wealth is still under our control. You could call it metal standard, oil standard, uranium standard if you want instead of gold standard. It is mostly about the principle behind it. Money that is backed by valuable resources which guarantee:

a) that your money is truly worth something and can be exchanged for that valuable resource
b) make sure that the value of currency stays as constant as possible

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 6:29 PM

JC, you are still wrong. Sorry to tell you this but since you dont live in the United States, you clearly do not understand how our government works , AND you are a ron paul supporter, you are a lost cause.

However, I'll give you one more benefit of the doubt because you dont live here. Please trust us. Ron Paul is insane. This is comming from somebody who lives here and understands the impact that lovely bill I pasted would have.

Why? His bill essentially overturn "Brown v Board of Education" and allow segregation in state ran public schools with NO recourse by our Supreme Court.

While I hate to link to wikipedia, please read up on that landmark court case.

And before you say "ron paul doesn't think we should have public schools", consider that his thoughts on public education will *not* become reality even if he was elected. Thus, you must take his bill *in the context of our current government*. Under *the current context of our government*, states and cities would be free to segregate their taxpayer funded schools, not teach evolution in taxpayer funded schools and preach the bible in taxpayer funded schools. Is this something you would endorse in your own country? Would you want your government to allow your schools to preach religion? What if the highest courts of your land were *forbidden* to apply your constitution to local law?

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 6:30 PM

PS: JC do not bother with a reply until posting which country you live in. I doubt you'll tell me and I suspect you'll reply anyway though.

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 6:34 PM


"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

You seem a bit naive as to the workings of the U.S. federal government. Sure, it says that in the 14th amendment, but that does not magically mean that State legislatures will not pass laws that violate it and attempt to have their executives execute those laws. Believe me, they do. State laws banning gay unions have popped up all over and the Supreme Court has yet to rule on it. The fact that state legislatures pass whatever laws they want is, in fact, the reason the Supreme Court exists in the first place.

In actuality, it seems that HR 300 would merely tie the hands of the Supreme Court from overriding such violations by the States. All HR 300 has done is take away a person's only method of reversing those laws, which is to appeal to the Supreme Court.

For example, say a state passes a law denying gays equal protection under the law. Yes, it violates the 14th amendment, but that *does not* stop the state from passing the law. The executive begins enforcing that law, and the law is eventually upheld by the state's judiciary. No state executive is going to refuse to execute laws because they think they are unconstitutional, especially if the state judiciary has upheld the law.

What HR 300 seems to say is that the state judiciary is the end all for decisions relating to those matters, even if they happen to violate the 14th amendment.

Posted by w7ngman | February 1, 2008 6:36 PM

JC, thank you for your rational voice on Slog. Funny how condescending these libs are, given the fact that they are all democrats, they really have nothing to be condescending about. Please realize how dumb Americans are, and at one time 80 percent of America favored invading Iraq. This is a result of Clinton deregulating the media. Clinton also sighed NAFTA, and exported a lot of choice jobs overseas, thus weakening our economy, which is about to tank.

Posted by . . . . | February 1, 2008 6:36 PM

Dear ....

Care to refute anything posted, or are you just here because virus that infected your brain told you to type random words on your keyboard?

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 6:41 PM

Hi crk on bellevue ave,

You say that his bill would allow segregation in state ran public schools.

HR 300 refers to religion, privacy, marriage and sexuality. Nowhere does it refer to education in any form so whatever you are saying is wrong! Plain and simple.

Listen to Ron Paul and you would know what he stands for. He does not stand any form of racism.
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and the constitution does not promote that in any form.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 6:42 PM

crk again brings up a good point, which is: if Ron Paul is elected, what the hell is he going to do? He sure as hell isn't getting any of his legislative ideas passed.

Besides vetoing *every* bill Congress passes, all he could maybe do is gut the executive. If a Democratic congressional majority after 2008 has the power to override vetoes, and starts passing a lot of laws that require a largish bureaucracy to execute, all Ron Paul will do by gutting the executive is hinder his ability to follow Article II. Some Constitutionalist he would be at that point, huh?

Unless he's one of those douchebags trying to hype the power of presidential signing statements (in which case he's still a shitty Constitutionalist).

If Ron Paul truly believed his own bullshit, he would *stay in Congress* and try to get others like him elected to Congress. It's the only effective way to *actually* do what he wants to do. Ultimately he just seems like a pandering, power-hungry nobody.

Posted by w7ngman | February 1, 2008 6:45 PM

"Listen to Ron Paul and you would know what he stands for."

No. I look at the bills he has tried to pass through congress.

First, you are correct but I *swear* there was another one of these bills that was worded slightly different to include race, but I forget the H.R number. Sadly I cannot find an elegant way to search for bills sponsored by Ron Paul across all congressional sessions.

Regardless, race aside, his bill would allow a taxpayer funded public school to promote whatever religion it felt like with no real recourse. Considering his thoughts on evolution (a whole different set of laughs), do you think he'd lift a finger should a state prohibit the teaching of evolution? Are you comfortable with that?

"Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and the constitution does not promote that in any form."

Actually, the constitution does promote what I am arguing. The very amendment you quoted forbids the government from promoting religion. Here, I'll even copy and paste from your own post:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

His bill, in the context of our current government, would leave that particular bit quite unenforceable. As an added zing, he *is* part of congress!

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 6:50 PM

by the way, you have yet to tell me which country you reside.

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 6:51 PM

Crk on bellevue ave,

You make some good points on the actual workings of the government. It is unfair however to blame Ron Paul for that. The problem lies with those who act unconstitutional. The blame does not lie in any way with Ron Paul for behaving constitutional even when others do not. Any problems that arise out of such situations should be those who did not uphold the law when they should have.

Crk, since you wanted to know...I live in the Netherlands.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 6:51 PM

@54: "Clinton also sighed NAFTA"

And verily, Ron Paul did whisper back "No, Bill, but I'll be gentle".

Posted by Fnarf | February 1, 2008 6:54 PM

Dear JC. Only in the warped mind of a Ron Paul supporter could one claim I am blaming Ron Paul. Only in the warped mind of Ron Paul supporter could one fail to see how his bills fix into the government *as it stands today*.

The bill I quoted would let any state in our country preach whatever religion they want in a taxpayer funded school and there would be *no* recourse by our highest court of the land. *In the context of our current government*, that is a pretty nasty side effect, dont you think?

I will make this very simple for you. I'll give 'ol ronny boy the benifit of the doubt here and say he *knows* most of his beliefs will *never* become reality. Given doing something like say, removing the IRS (which I suspect is the US equivalent of your Belastingdienst) would require significant political support, is my statement fair?

So if we assume he *knows* most of his stuff will never become reality, is it fair to say he writes his legislation to fit into government as it exists today?

If so, what does that say about him?

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 7:04 PM

His bill would not allow religion to be part of the school education. Since it is a taxpayer funded public school it is a part of the government so to say.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

So while everyone is free to think whatever they want there will be no active promotion of religion at schools.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 7:07 PM

And yes, the IRS = Belastingdienst. Er, it could also be your ministry of finance too.

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 7:09 PM

"His bill would not allow religion to be part of the school education. "

Yes it would. States could enact laws to put religion into their school. The *only* thing that prevents them from doing so is somebody suing the state in a federal court. Since the bill you seem to endorse will expressly forbid the federal court from hearing the case, citizens of the state are pretty much screwed, aren't they?

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 7:11 PM

Crk and w7ngman,

Great changes are always hard to accomplish. It does however not mean that it is impossible and should thus be ignored. People have the power to make it possible. If you think that you probably will be losing, you already have lost.

The challenges that lie ahead seems very easy compared to the battle that Martin Luther King was facing. That must truly have seemed impossible. And yet, the impossible happened. Many of these seemingly impossible events throughout history can be mentioned. There are no impossibilities. Success is always closer at hand than it seems as long as believe it is possible.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 7:17 PM

Crk, I know that the IRS is the equivalent of the "belastingdienst". It is the same problem. Most countries have this problem. Change has to start somewhere and in your country someone finally stood up to the fraud (Ron Paul). In the Netherlands and many parts of Europe taxes can be as high as 50% just to pay the interest on all the government debt. The money is created out of nothing by the central bank which is owned by member banks and not the government. This money is lent to the government which has to pay interest back to the bankers and thus charges exorbitant taxrates to its citizens.

If the government would truly own the Federal Reserve then your government would never have a debt in the first place. If the government would need some extra money they could just print it without having to lend it. The population would of course feel the effects of that in the form of inflation (increased money supply).

You could be taxed indirectly in that way by means of taxes on everything you buy. Currently however you also have to pay income tax to pay for the interest on the government debt and your money is becoming worth less as the result of inflation (hidden tax). In the most optimal form the govenment would assure at all costs that the money supply would remain constant so that also the value of your money remains constant.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 7:29 PM

Riddle me this Netherlindian Batman. What would you think if our country withdrew from the United Nations, WTO and the OECD? Are you proud of your nation for signing the Kyoto treaty? Do you think we should have? Ron Paul wouldn't sign it.

You, and all your neighbor countries would most likely be negotiating with 50 separate states (after all, where in the constitution does it say anything about international trade?). Since your country is our fourth largest investor, are you comfortable with the idea that you could no longer invest in "US companies" and would instead be forced to learn about every one of our states business and trade regulations? If Ron Paul was elected and could live his dream you would.

"If you think that you probably will be losing, you already have lost."
I think we are gaining. I think our current administration has done much to piss your side of the Atlantic off and I humbly would like to apologize for Bush. I plan to vote for a president who will make us look good on the global state.

Ron Paul wants us to withdraw from the world stage (I'll link to his record on this if you'd like). He wants our country to take not a step forward, but a huge leap backwards in time. Under his idea of government, your country would never deal with our federal government.

"Great changes are always hard to accomplish"
Yes. And neither Ron Paul nor his policies would help.

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 7:34 PM


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Sounds pretty clear to me.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 7:38 PM

"The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court shall not adjudicate any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;"

Given what you typed and Ron Pauls bill I just put into a paragraph, What court should I go to if a State *does* make and enforce law which abridges the privileges or immunities of US citizens?

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 7:43 PM

Crk, everyone has their own opinions. I as entrepreneur would rather deal with the US when Ron Paul is in charge then if any other president would have their say. Many new global institutions are forming and they are fighting against the US like in South America for example. That is not without reason.

Many other countries do not interfere with everything that happens on a global scale. The war is not really accomplishing anything except lining pockets of a few mighty companies. Watch this video:

It is about Halliburton blowing up US trucks in Iraq, because they got a flat tire and the US taxpayers are paying for them anyway. There is also a lot of other shocking material on the video and takes about 10 min. I am sure that after watching this video you will feel differently about all the "good work" that is being done in the world by the US is not good work at all. They are merely running off with your money. Companies have taken over the govenment. If they lie about this, what else would they lie about? The fact that all major news channels are censoring Ron Paul should tell that he is doing an excellent job. If he pisses off very powerful people, he probably is helping the rest. So unless you are part of the elite he is an excellent candidate.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 7:55 PM

I better go (the comment timestamp is PST you know) but...

In our country, States are kind of like mini governments. For example, every state has their own way of doing, a right that was spelled out in an constitutional amendement ending prohibition. In California you can by vodka at Costco but here in Washington I can only get vodka at a state run liquor store. Costco recently sued our state over another bit of our arcane liquor law (wine & beer distribution) claiming the state was running a monopoly on distribution (basically, our state jacks up the price as a "sin tax").

In Washington, the our max speed on an interstate highway is 70 but in Arizona it is 75.

If I had a blood alchohol level of 0.08 in Washington, I'd be legally driving while drunk. Some states have lower limits, others have higher. In Louisiana (hurricane katrina), you can get an margaritta from a drive through stand and drink it on the way home provided you have a straw. In Washington, it is illegal to have an open container of any kind of alcoholic beverage.

Each state has it's own law that spells out exactly what a corporation is (though many are pretty much the same) and as a business, you pick a state to incorporate in. My business is a Washington state corporation, and if you were in California and wanted to sue my corporation, it would be under Washington state law.

Each state has their own vehicle registration. Each state has it's own drivers licensing requirements.

If I disagree with *any* of this, I can basically sue the any kind of government and appeal it all the way up to our supreme court. The supreme court is the last line and weights the constitutionality of whatever I'm suing about.

What is the point of my rambling besides hoping to imbue you with some background? We have plenty of diversity between our states. Ron Paul's dream would degrade this country (and quite possibly the entire world) into chaos.

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 7:55 PM

"I as entrepreneur would rather deal with the US when Ron Paul is in charge "

If he was president, you'd be dealing with the governor of every state instead. Instead of one asshole president, you'd be dealing with 50 separate governors. Sound good?

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 7:58 PM


No court. Religion and state matters are separated. Government paid schools are a state matter. There is no court needed since it is clear what the rules should be. There should be no intermingling of these matters so no promotion of religion at public schools. Those who would like a certain religion promoted could go to a private school.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 8:00 PM

If Ron Paul would be president it probably would be a lot easier to trade with the US. Why? Because all those controls on goods are mostly because institutions like the IRS want a piece of everything. So they control everything. There really is not much left of the IRS if Ron Paul gets what he wants and so I would not even have to deal seperately with 50 governors since there would not be much left to govern.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 8:06 PM

"There is no court needed since it is clear what the rules should be"

Nothing in law is clear. The constitution is, what, a few thousand words? We probably typed more words on this blog entry than there are in the constitution. Is it possible to cover *every* edge case in only a few thousand words? The only way to cover *every* edge case is to write a law for how every single atom interacts with every other atom... and I mean that. Law is open to interpretation and we learn and understand our constitution *because* of lawsuits. Every lawsuit we have furthers our understanding of the constitution.

Last year somebody got pissy with the Port of Seattle, who runs our local airport, because they put up a Christmas Tree. I'll pull a quote from this years Seattle Times article about it:
"The Port's decision on this year's holiday décor came on the same day that the state announced it will allow a nativity display at the Capitol rotunda in Olympia. Other religious displays also will be allowed.

The state's decision stems from the settlement of a federal lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal-rights group in Arizona. Various displays can now be included as long as the state doesn't promote any one religion." (I encourage you to read that article *in full* for an understating of how unclear this stuff is)

Under Ron Paul's bill, the Port of Seattle could walk you through a full scale model of hell on the way to your flight and if the state courts backed it up as "not religious", it would be impossible to appeal to a federal court.

Does our constitution *literally* say anything about putting a tree with lights on it in a public building? No. Does a tree with lights on it violate our constitution? Am I fair to claim that it is *not* clear what the rules should be?

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 8:19 PM

"I would not even have to deal seperately with 50 governors since there would not be much left to govern."

Yes you would. Each one of the 50 states, who now lost all federal funding, would instantly create their own IRS. Each would create their own trade policy because the federal government washed their hands of it.

You are thinking Ron Paul is a libertarian of the aracho-capitalist pure-freemarket type. He is not. Ron Paul is a "States Rights" guy. His stance is "States can do whatever they want... Leave the fed out of it...". He is more then happy to let state government impose any kind of burden on you folk in the Netherlands.

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 8:25 PM

er... anarcho-capitalist... sorry

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 1, 2008 8:34 PM

If it is not clear what the rules are then maybe there should not be any rules at all about those matters. Not everything needs to be controlled. We are not totalitarian, are we?

Some things should be free to be chosen. It is not as if a Christmas tree can cause harm to another person at least in the physical sense. Some could argue that it could mentally, but let us not forget that Christmas was invented by the Coca-Cola corporation. That nullifies any argument. If a corporation can invent holidays, people should be allowed to do the same if they feel like it. So if someone wants to set up a Christmas tree in whatever season I would not stop him. It is not truly a religious symbol in that sense.

From this perspective religion is merely a set of ideas. It would require a lot of censure to make sure that there is no visible religion since a lot of ideas would be called religion.

It seems as if the courts overreacted a bit when reading the article.

There is not that much freedom left when an entire protocol is created about what can or cannot be done. People often try to control their surroundings too much and themselves too little. Ironically it is much easier to control ourselves than it is to control others.

Posted by JC | February 1, 2008 8:46 PM

Apparently the way to win an argument on slog is to call your opponent a lunatic or dismiss his ideas as idiotic. Tolerant free-thinking, woohoo!

I'll give you credit, sloggers; at least you're not passive-aggressive like so many other northwesterners.

Now let's go back to fellating Obama, eh?

Posted by sloggers r teh dumz EYE WINNNN | February 1, 2008 10:29 PM

Ron Paul: Kind of Objectivist, but without having to struggle through "Atlas Shrugged"; A way to feel idealistic about your fear of being drafted while not having to give up any of your basic greed; The perfect candidate for the lazy or stupid, who want to sound like revolutionaries, because they think it will help them pick up chicks.

The perfect candidate for fraternity row!!!

Posted by Gold Standard My Ass | February 1, 2008 11:14 PM

Sloggers R Dumz, it is too bad you people are destroying our interweb or I'd find you hilarious. You've been infected with a pretty interesting brain virus (meme if you will) that has somehow turned off rational thought.

Truth be told, I used think of myself as a libertarian until this election. In fact, I swear to god I voted for him when I attending the UW last time he ran. I know I voted libertarian for all the state offices.

This election cycle, if it wasn't for Ron Paul, I would never have analyzed how wrong I was about myself. Scary as I sometimes find it, I'm a god damn democrat (who is still not on board with any kind of universal health care stuff... I can remain a free market capitalist who understands supply and demand and call myself a democrat)

I now suspect Libertarianism, and extreme socialism for that matter, is a phase many college students such as my former self, go through. When you combine just enough academic theory (econ/engineering = libertarian, all else = socialism), a sprinkle of "fuck the man" from your days in high school, and little "real world" experience to check the whole mess against, you've got a recipe for ideas like libertarianism or hardcore socialism. Both make perfect sense on the surface.

Unfortunately both break down once you really carry the ideas to their logical conclusion. Once you graduate, work for a living and experience some things, you see both systems as incredibly simplistic. As my brother wisely once said "I used to always say 'fuck the man', but now I realize sometimes the man was right".

What I find sad is people who never grow out of their liberatarian/Xtreme-Socalist phase. It is the people who are 40 years old and still think we could function under a Ron Paul style government that I am troubled with. Those are the people who toss in conspiracy theories by the MSM, black helicopters, and inside jobs as a way to hang on to the tattered remains of their flawed thinking.

College students are not brain damaged for supporting Ron Paul. A cutely naive waste positive energy, yes, but not mentally ill. It is the working man who continues to believe in these things I have problems with.

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | February 2, 2008 9:57 AM

@80: The problem isn't the endless parade of seemingly unrelated sentences from JC and the ellipsis guy. The problem is that Ron Paul's ideas (assuming these are them) don't make any fucking sense. The Gold Standard? Elimination of federal environmental laws? The Paultards are poised to sieze political nut group primacy when Lyndon LaRouche passes on to that big cardtable in the sky.

Posted by J.R. | February 2, 2008 12:23 PM

I think Marginal Revolution man Tyler Cowen said it best, "Ron Paul is insufficiently intellectual."

Posted by Sean Towey | February 2, 2008 4:38 PM

What everyone seems to be forgetting in all these argument is, how are we going to pay for this precious war in the middle east? How are we going to pay for Obama's foray into Pakistan? How are we going to pay for Hilary's "all options are on the table" Iran? You all cry isolationism, but it's noninterventionism. No one, batshit crazy al-qaida or not, is going to mount a major offensive against the USA if all of our troops are home. We lost 3K in 911. We lose over 200k a year to alcohol, tobacco, and cars. Tragic, yes, but the military intelligence will keep more attacks from happening if we concentrate it at home, not across the world. McCain talks about Korea. Know what our Korea plan is? Our troops act as cannon fodder for the North Koreans while a nuke is mobilized. Great plan. Bring the troops home for national security. Paul wants more transparency in monetary policy. He wants troops home. I used to be a liberal, but I find now that the policies Paul is talking about, I agree with. How can we keep being the world's policeman? Why are we committing troops for the next 100 years? The Department of Education is a giant boondoggle, especially with NCLB. The feds should be helping the worst schools, not penalizing them. I don't get it. Take my points, Paul haters, and tell me what your precious candidates are going to do about them. Paul is the only one who has actually proposed things instead of just blowing smoke.

Posted by PJ | February 2, 2008 5:55 PM

Wants to give rights- full, constitutional rights, like the ones we all enjoy, to a freshly fertilized egg.
Fuck him.
Oh yeah, and there's that sexy racism.

Posted by julie | February 3, 2008 4:55 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).