Can someone explain to me...

Quillion

Quillion

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
...the love of Ron Paul? In this forum, in others, and on the news, he's held with something akin to reverence. Personally, I never got past the image of him as sniveling. I know that's an ad hominem, so I'm asking for honest reasons why he is so lauded.

Please, educate me. We're not looking for a flame war here, I will not be offering counterpoints, at worst I'll question your facts and ask for more information - essentially just asking for your opinions.

Thanks!
 
grandpa_simpson_yelling_at_cloud.jpg



Imagine this is Ron Paul. Do you understand?
 
Ron Paul is attractive to some because many are disgusted with both the directions of the Republican and the Democrat parties. He is simply an alternative to those people. I believe he is in favor of less government control/interference, which is attractive to some.

I don't know much about him to say much more.
 
He's a small government, fiscal conservative. Thus his views mesh better with like minded members here more than other famous politicians--especially since Republicans under Bush were also big spenders, big expanders of federal government power etc.

Thus some saw/see Paul as their knight in shining armor as he's about all they got these days.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Not really helpful. But I take this to understand you don't care for him.[/quote]

Ron Paul is an old crank. He blasts big government, but is utterly futile in stopping it. Like most distractions, he goes after the biggest prize: the presidency.

Before ANYBODY tries to defend his presidential bid, how many city councils, state legislative or even Congressional seats could have been "bought" with the money Ron Paul spent failing to become president?
 
[quote name='Quillion']...the love of Ron Paul? In this forum, in others, and on the news, he's held with something akin to reverence. Personally, I never got past the image of him as sniveling. I know that's an ad hominem, so I'm asking for honest reasons why he is so lauded.[/quote]
Much like Gamera, Ron Paul just loves children.
 
[quote name='Quillion']...the love of Ron Paul? In this forum, in others, and on the news, he's held with something akin to reverence. Personally, I never got past the image of him as sniveling. I know that's an ad hominem, so I'm asking for honest reasons why he is so lauded.

Please, educate me. We're not looking for a flame war here, I will not be offering counterpoints, at worst I'll question your facts and ask for more information - essentially just asking for your opinions.

Thanks![/QUOTE]
Whether or not you agree with him, Ron Paul appears to speak his mind without much regard for what politicians are "not allowed" to say. He also seems to be very polite, almost to a fault, and a good family man. Many people find this refreshing.
 
He's an honest man who wants to limit government power and maximize individual freedom...the opposite of what most politicians want to do.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']He's an honest man who wants to limit government power and maximize individual freedom...the opposite of what most politicians want to do.[/quote]

INCORRECT!
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']INCORRECT![/quote]

Orly? Who else in Washington wants to end the wars, repeal the patriot act, stop foreign intervention, legalize marijuana and other nonviolent "crimes" that take place between consenting adults, abolish the income tax, and let people live their lives as they please?

Don't say Kucinich.. He's halfway there, but has no respect for economic freedom. He's an absolute tyrant on that issue, but pretty good otherwise.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']legalize all non-violent "crimes"
[/QUOTE]

So he wants to legalize burglary, theft, auto theft, etc.!?! j/k. :D
 
RP wants to legalize hookers and brothels like they have in Holland.. There, I said it! ;)

If no fraud, theft or violence is involved, it shouldn't be a crime. That's his philosophy.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Orly? Who else in Washington wants to end the wars, repeal the patriot act, stop foreign intervention, legalize marijuana and other nonviolent "crimes" that take place between consenting adults, abolish the income tax, and let people live their lives as they please?

Don't say Kucinich.. He's halfway there, but has no respect for economic freedom. He's an absolute tyrant on that issue, but pretty good otherwise.[/quote]

Power is in numbers, not in titles.

If people really want to change the government, they need to find the weak seats and take them over instead of these "Charge of the Light Brigade" failed attempts for Presidency by Perot, Nader or Paul.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Power is in numbers, not in titles.

If people really want to change the government, they need to find the weak seats and take them over instead of these "Charge of the Light Brigade" failed attempts for Presidency by Perot, Nader or Paul.[/QUOTE]

Have you considered the possibility that a presidential campaign is an excellent way to recruit people in large numbers?
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']RP wants to legalize hookers and brothels like they have in Holland.. There, I said it! ;)

If no fraud, theft or violence is involved, it shouldn't be a crime. That's his philosophy.[/quote]

Trannies will still be illegal, right?
 
[quote name='rickonker']Have you considered the possibility that a presidential campaign is an excellent way to recruit people in large numbers?[/quote]

I know working for Ron Paul is a good way to get detained at the St. Louis airport.

...

Yes, people were recruited, they donated their money and it was pissed away on a failed presidential bid. Was that the goal?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I know working for Ron Paul is a good way to get detained at the St. Louis airport.

...

Yes, people were recruited, they donated their money and it was pissed away on a failed presidential bid. Was that the goal?[/QUOTE]
Hey, I'm not saying that was the best strategy. But, yes or no, aren't far more people now aware of his views, and aren't far more people now working for their cause?
 
[quote name='rickonker']Hey, I'm not saying that was the best strategy. But, yes or no, aren't far more people now aware of his views, and aren't far more people now working for their cause?[/quote]

Which website is sane?

http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/news/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/

Answer: Neither.

...

If people are working for Ron Paul's cause, they're wasting their energies.

If people are working in their local communities to slow down the advance of US totalitarianism, they might be getting somewhere.
 
I think his point was isn't it likely/possible that people who worked for his cause where inspired to continue on the fight? Perhaps at the local level, running for local offices etc.?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Which website is sane?

http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/news/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/

Answer: Neither.
[/quote]

...So?

If people are working for Ron Paul's cause, they're wasting their energies.

If people are working in their local communities to slow down the advance of US totalitarianism, they might be getting somewhere.
Click to expand...
What would you say Ron Paul's cause is?

[quote name='dmaul1114']I think his point was isn't it likely/possible that people who worked for his cause where inspired to continue on the fight? Perhaps at the local level, running for local offices etc.?[/quote]

Right, that's exactly what happened. So whether or not you think it will work, you can't really say nothing came of the run.
 
[quote name='rickonker']What would you say Ron Paul's cause is?[/quote]

If one is sane, how about limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency?

If one is insane, how about a bug zapper where the bugs are people sick of growing government, the bright shining light attracting the bugs is Ron Paul and the 2,000V wire grids the bugs land on is the government?

[quote name='rickonker']Right, that's exactly what happened. So whether or not you think it will work, you can't really say nothing came of the run.[/quote]

I hate to channel mykevermin here, but ... Do you have any proof that more people are involved in their communities or politics because of Ron Paul?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I hate to channel mykevermin here, but ... Do you have any proof that more people are involved in their communities or politics because of Ron Paul?[/QUOTE]

If you're asking for proof that more people are now fighting for Ron Paul's policies (whether you or I agree with them or not), his post-campaign political organization has over 140,000 members.
 
OP, all you need to do is watch half a dozen of his most popular videos on Youtube. Many of us simply agree with almost everything he says in them and many of us don't see anyone else in Washington saying those things.

Even if I disagreed with everything else he says, he is a hero for championing the reversal of the Federal Reserve act of 1913 and trying to do things about it like HR 1207. Things which everyone else in Washington disgustingly and tellingly ignores and laughs at.
 
Thanks for all the well-reasoned responses, after reading them and watching the videos, I've both confirmed my opinion of him as sniveling, and agreed with most of the CAGs.

His positions are well-intentioned, but I think most of them are slightly naive, and he is batshit insane. All of the above.
 
A return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency can lead to Depression.

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/the_gold_standa.html

I read in another place that at $1000 per ounce, there is only gold in the world to back $4.5 trillion where the US has nearly $8 trillion in circulation.

The US would have to take every country's gold by force and still practically double the price of gold to have currency back by gold.

If the price of gold suddenly doubled, what would happen to the price of consumer goods?
 
If he starts his own party, I might have more respect for him. I don't believe in much of what he proposes at all, but as long as he plays the role of "The Republican party left me, so I'm going to change it from the inside," which is a fool's errand and a lie to you, I won't have much for him.

It's been kosher for a few years now to blast the growth of government size, power, and expenditure that we experienced under the Republican party - not since Bush, but since Nixon. We frame it in terms of "holy crap Bush did _____, which is contrary to small federal government Republican ideals!" but the reality is that we've experienced growth in size, power, and spending under all Republican presidents starting with Nixon.

It's shameful, and a show that the Republican party's response to John DiIulio's calling of the Bush Administration as "Mayberry Machiavellis" should have been "so what? It worked, didn't it?" We fall for the images and themes and frames we hear on the news, and don't spend as much time holding politicians accountable for bills they actually promote, power they actually sieze, power they expand upon, etc.

If you're scared about the federal government establishing military power over the populace within the borders, y'alls parents should have left the Republican party the minute Nixon established the LEAA's broader powers.

I've said it before, and many, many Republicans, including thrustbucket, seem to largely agree. There have been no *true* conservatives since Barry Goldwater. Paul represents the closest thing to that ideal possible. So it's easy to see his appeal, even if it accomplishes little to nothing.

I'm with those who imply or state that it's silly to aim for the presidency first. Building grass-roots, localized efforts to engage in politics at the city, county, and state level are more important in establishing power than claiming the office of the presidency. It's the same reason Libertarians aren't taken seriously.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']LEAA's broader powers.
[/quote]

The worst thing about it is that I don't think congress even wants to do away with it; they should have been fighting to do away with it every minute since it was implemented. If you send Americans to get killed in some far away country the least you can do is have a vote (that carries weight) on whether or not to do so. I guess they don't want the responsibility.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']A return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency can lead to Depression.

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/the_gold_standa.html

I read in another place that at $1000 per ounce, there is only gold in the world to back $4.5 trillion where the US has nearly $8 trillion in circulation.

The US would have to take every country's gold by force and still practically double the price of gold to have currency back by gold.

If the price of gold suddenly doubled, what would happen to the price of consumer goods?[/QUOTE]

This is silly, FoC. Do you really think anyone who wants commodity-backed currency would do it this way? That's just a convenient (and very popular) strawman.
 
[quote name='dropbearGSH']The worst thing about it is that I don't think congress even wants to do away with it; they should have been fighting to do away with it every minute since it was implemented. If you send Americans to get killed in some far away country the least you can do is have a vote (that carries weight) on whether or not to do so. I guess they don't want the responsibility.[/QUOTE]

It is a carrot to dangle. Once we recognize things like this (e.g., outlawing abortion would hurt the Republican party by giving their constituency the carrot, and now they don't have any bait), we can put the fuckers out of power who get nothing done irrespective of what they claim.

Paul may have his supporters, but he's not accomplished very much other than to separate fools from their money. Which isn't a unique trait for a politician.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I've both confirmed my opinion of him as sniveling[/QUOTE]
1. To sniffle.
2. To complain or whine tearfully.
3. To run at the nose.
Click to expand...

Which of those do you mean by "sniveling"? #2?
 
[quote name='rickonker']This is silly, FoC. Do you really think anyone who wants commodity-backed currency would do it this way? That's just a convenient (and very popular) strawman.[/quote]

OK. Which commodities does Ron Paul want backing our currency (gold, silver, copper, platinum, oil, uranium, rice, corn or some unique combination)?

All you have to do to manipulate a commodity-backed currency is manipulate the availability of a commodity.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']OK. Which commodities does Ron Paul want backing our currency (gold, silver, copper, platinum, oil, uranium, rice, corn or some unique combination)?[/quote]
No, my point is that what you posted would be a foolish way to transition to a commodity-backed currency, and almost all proponents of them know that.

I've heard Ron Paul's plan, which is one of many possibilities, would be to legalize competing currencies, including gold. That means, for one thing, removing restrictions/taxes on gold transactions.
All you have to do to manipulate a commodity-backed currency is manipulate the availability of a commodity.
Click to expand...
And?
 
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica] If we began to take the matter seriously I'm sure some smart people out there could come up with a variety of solutions. We could back the dollar with a diverse basket of commodities traded on the world market (oil, metals, natural gas, lumber, food, etc).. It's very difficult to manipulate anything traded on the world market like this.. And if you back currency with anything that requires energy and real productive capacity to pull out of the earth, you naturally limit the amount that can be created out of thin air.. It doesn't even need to be a 100% backing..just a partial backing would help a great deal in stabilizing it's value and allowing people to plan effectively for the future..rather than making foolish investments and chasing returns in an effort to outpace inflation (the things that lead to bubbles BTW).[/FONT]
 
[quote name='rickonker']Which of those do you mean by "sniveling"? #2?[/quote]
Yuppers. He seems like he's whining and/or pleading in most of his videos. As if he feels slighted to not have more support; or that he's not taken seriously, and he's very not OK with that fact.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Yuppers. He seems like he's whining and/or pleading in most of his videos. As if he feels slighted to not have more support; or that he's not taken seriously, and he's very not OK with that fact.[/QUOTE]
I think I know what you're talking about, but I also think that's just his age and how he sounds, and you're reading too much into it.

As I believe you already know, there are good reasons to disagree with him, but that isn't one of them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It is a carrot to dangle. Once we recognize things like this (e.g., outlawing abortion would hurt the Republican party by giving their constituency the carrot, and now they don't have any bait), we can put the fuckers out of power who get nothing done irrespective of what they claim.[/QUOTE]

If abortion was made illegal, there would still be a movement trying to make it legal again. So Republicans could stay on pro-lifers' good sides by pledging to keep it illegal. Just like what happens right now with Democrats, only vice versa. You don't see groups like NOW deserting the Democrats since abortion is legal, do you?

The problem with Republicans on the issue of abortion is that far too many of them don't really mean what they say, or it's a low priority for them, while many who are pro-life are quite passionate about their position. So Republicans had control of Congress and the presidency from 2001-2007, yet the only thing they accomplished on this issue was the partial-birth abortion ban. Don't get me wrong, this is a great accomplishment from a pro-life standpoint, but there could have been a lot more done if most of those who paid mere lip service to the issue were really concerned about it.
 
[quote name='rickonker']No, my point is that what you posted would be a foolish way to transition to a commodity-backed currency, and almost all proponents of them know that.

I've heard Ron Paul's plan, which is one of many possibilities, would be to legalize competing currencies, including gold. That means, for one thing, removing restrictions/taxes on gold transactions.[/quote]

How is the transition from fiat to backed currencies going to be anything but painful, disruptive and, eventually, abandoned? Regarding competing currencies, are they going to be fiat or backed currencies? Assuming backed currencies only, is a currency kicked when it goes back to being fiat?

[quote name='rickonker']And?[/quote]

If the value of a currency fluctuates by 1% a year, no biggie. Greater than 100%? A massive amount of suffering by the bottom tier of workers, confusion for the middle tier of workers and an effort to return to fiat currencies by the top tier of workers.
 
Currencies already compete on the open market daily foc. We have 50+ currencies rising and falling constantly on the exchanges 24 hours a day...trillions of dollars changing hands and yet there is no chaos..no anarchy. What would be the harm in legalizing the same thing in America?

As for standards...The whole point in competition is that there will be no arbitrary imposed standards of what constitutes money. There would be no legal tender law.. Some currencies will be backed by commodities and some won't.. The currencies that preserve their value best will tend to be the most widely trusted and desired by the public..and will eventually become dominant. Issuers who debase their their currency (including the fed) will lose the public's confidence and be abandoned.. I think a little competition could do a world of good for us. Even if the dollar remained the currency of choice for most people, the fed would have much more incentive to be open and honest about their actions..and with the prospect of another currency becoming dominant, they would be much less likely to inflate away the purchasing power of our money.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']OK. Which commodities does Ron Paul want backing our currency (gold, silver, copper, platinum, oil, uranium, rice, corn or some unique combination)?

All you have to do to manipulate a commodity-backed currency is manipulate the availability of a commodity.[/QUOTE]

I don't remember for sure what Ron Paul himself suggests we back currency with, but many people simply advocate a fiat currency like the one we have, backed by nothing; with the difference being you abolish the federal reserve.

In other words, many economic experts see no problem in the government printing fiat money. It isn't a perfect solution, but at least we elect and give term limits to those that have the power of printing the money. It's a far cry from letting a private bank do it.

The hope is that those printing money will at least have SOME accountability in the wisdom of when and how much money they print.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I think I know what you're talking about, but I also think that's just his age and how he sounds, and you're reading too much into it.

As I believe you already know, there are good reasons to disagree with him, but that isn't one of them.[/quote]
Oh, no, that's not a reason to disagree with him, just an ad hominem based on a gut reaction to him speaking. I disagree with some of his positions for other reasons. Mostly I think he's not a realist, but he's at least fighting for something.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Oh, no, that's not a reason to disagree with him, just an ad hominem based on a gut reaction to him speaking. I disagree with some of his positions for other reasons. Mostly I think he's not a realist, but he's at least fighting for something.[/QUOTE]

Ready? Here it comes....

Many felt George Washington and Thomas Jefferson weren't realists with their goals either.

I think more "unrealists" are exactly what this country needs right now.
 
because he caters to people's love of rugged individualism that has been pumped into American's heads, and he uses pseudo-intellectualism to back up these beliefs.

See: Rand, Ayn
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How is the transition from fiat to backed currencies going to be anything but painful, disruptive and, eventually, abandoned? Regarding competing currencies, are they going to be fiat or backed currencies? Assuming backed currencies only, is a currency kicked when it goes back to being fiat? [/quote]

What? Like Capitalizt said, we already have competing currencies (fiat and backed) and the sky isn't falling. The problem is that the competing currencies face restrictions that don't apply to the US dollar. If those restrictions are removed, people can use whatever currencies they want in whatever proportions they want.

What do you mean by a currency being "kicked"? I think you've made the assumption that the government must control all currencies. If you don't like a currency anymore, you should be free to stop using it and switch to something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top