Ron Paul Watch or Vigil?

BoyRacer · **Joined:** Jul 26, 2009 **Posts:** 10353

Rick Flair wrote:

Ron Paul’s Strange Freedom

Quote:

After looking at his positions and statements, the most remarkable thing is that if it weren’t for his loud fanbase of self-proclaimed libertarians you wouldn’t really think this is the platform of a libertarian. He’s loudly trumpeting his plan to impose criminal penalties on women who terminate their pregnancies and he makes it clear that his interest in freedom doesn’t extend to the freedom of anyone unfortunate enough to have been born in a foreign country. His campaign slogan of “RESTORE AMERICA NOW” is strongly suggestive of conservative impulses and nostalgia for the much-less-free America John Boehner grew up in. The mainstay of his economic thinking is the ridiculous proposition that “[t]here is no greater threat to the security and prosperity of the United States today than the out-of-control, secretive Federal Reserve.” Not only is Paul’s goldbuggery nutty on the merits, like his affection for forced pregnancy and severe restrictions on human freedom of movement it’s difficult to see what it has to do with freedom. The freedom of the government to set a fixed dollar price of gold? America’s current monetary policy—a fiat currency that’s freely exchangeable for other currencies and commodities—is the free market position.

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/ ... e-freedom/

Rick, a free market is one where when you refuse to do something for someone, they accept it with good grace and don't smash your head in or otherwise attack you. That's all it is. We know what happens to countries that refuse the dollar....they get to enjoy the full benefits of Keynesian stimulus programs.

November 2000: Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks -> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 12,00.html

Iran: It’s Not Just Oil, It’s The Dollar, Stupid! -> http://silencednomore.com/iran-not-jus-oil/

Quote:

Senator Ron Paul said in a speech to the US House of Representatives in 2006:

“In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat.

“At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein — though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.”

Later in this speech he states:

‘In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.

“After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance.

“It’s become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez, and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported.”

more

ditch dweller · **Posted:** Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:14 pm

BoyRacer wrote:

I don't believe you will find any other candidate in the race who is as articulate and knowledgeable as Ron Paul about the world outside the USA, watch the exchange with Rick Santorum in the Iowa debate linked below and judge for yourself.

http://spreadingsantorum.com/

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/28/dan ... yet-again/

Puck may be Famous · **Joined:** May 3, 2008 **Posts:** 2042

dodgy tradesman · **Joined:** Apr 20, 2008 **Posts:** 20

He's consistent. I'll give him that

Puck may be Famous · **Joined:** May 3, 2008 **Posts:** 2042

One for the real Ron Paul fans.

An hour-long lecture at New England University in New Hampshire a couple of days ago.

BoyRacer · **Joined:** Jul 26, 2009 **Posts:** 10353

BoyRacer · **Joined:** Jul 26, 2009 **Posts:** 10353

BoyRacer · **Joined:** Jul 26, 2009 **Posts:** 10353

The biggest boo line? The suggesting that America is being unfair to Palestinians.

mr_anderson · **Posted:** Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:05 pm

Criticising Israel is political suicide in America.
It shows Ron Pauls bravery and his belief in the truth that he is willing to speak out in front of such a crowd knowing their response will not be favourable.

'Talking tough' against terrorism is easy to do.
Trying to explain to the ignorant, the reasons behind terrorism is the hardest thing possible, especially when they don't want to hear the answer.

No other politican even comes close to him.

Rick Flair · **Posted:** Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:09 am

BoyRacer wrote:

The biggest boo line? The suggesting that America is being unfair to Palestinians.

Fair play to him alright.

But the Libertarain message gets alot more muddled here.

roc · **Joined:** Aug 22, 2008 **Posts:** 2864

mr_anderson wrote:

Criticising Israel is political suicide in America.
It shows Ron Pauls bravery and his belief in the truth that he is willing to speak out in front of such a crowd knowing their response will not be favourable.

'Talking tough' against terrorism is easy to do.
Trying to explain to the ignorant, the reasons behind terrorism is the hardest thing possible, especially when they don't want to hear the answer.

No other politican even comes close to him.

There is no doubt war and war-making is full of atrocities and horrors of all kinds.

But is it not true that what is required for peace-making is an ability to see both sides of the story?

There is no such thing as absolute truth. In fact, the belief that there is such a thing is what lies behind more wars than anything else in my opinion.

Here is the Israeli side of the story in brief as best I can make out.

When the jews first started going back in numbers to their historical land around the turn of the twentieth centuy, to escape the pogroms that were taking place right across europe, in the space of two thousand years their old country had reverted to desolate swamp and desert, sparsely populated by palestinian arabs living in worse than third world conditions. This is verified by all accounts from those times.

Through the kibbutz system they laboured crazy hours in mosquito infested swamps and sweltering desert, building irrigation channels, draining the swamps, and they succeeded in turning the land around to support farms and communities.

But later on, certain arab interests began inciting the palestinian arabs to carry out attacks on jewish settlements to further the personal political ends of these interests (even after the jews had largely lived in peace with, and brought great benefits to their palestinian neighbours up until these attacks started increasing and increasing).

It was at this stage that the military aspects of the kibbutzes started to come into being. And, leading up to their declaration of independence after the 1948 partition, they had to further develop the military aspects of kibbutz life to protect themselves from increasing attack.

What would you do?

I am coming to dislike Ron Paul's opinions and view of the world more and more, the more I hear from him.

Puck may be Famous · **Joined:** May 3, 2008 **Posts:** 2042

Ron paul isn't pro-Palistinian or anti-Israeli.

He thinks that America should just mind its own business.

He was trying to explain the declared motives of al-queda and other anti-American islamist organisations for attacks on the US. He was trying to explain that if you pick a side and get involved then expect some blowback. His point is that 9/11 or a similar event should have come as no surprise.

Rick Flair · **Posted:** Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:30 am

Puck may be Famous wrote:

Ron paul isn't pro-Palistinian or anti-Israeli.

He thinks that America should just mind its own business.

He was trying to explain the declared motives of al-queda and other anti-American islamist organisations for attacks on the US. He was trying to explain that if you pick a side and get involved then expect some blowback. His point is that 9/11 or a similar event should have come as no surprise.

How do you mind your own business? What about food security, energy security, even just wars? Im not saying he doesnt have a point but its deeply complex stuff. Is it realistic to argue that the US can rewind the clock 150 years and return to isolationism?

Puck may be Famous · **Joined:** May 3, 2008 **Posts:** 2042

Rick Flair wrote:

Puck may be Famous wrote:

Ron paul isn't pro-Palistinian or anti-Israeli.

He thinks that America should just mind its own business.

He was trying to explain the declared motives of al-queda and other anti-American islamist organisations for attacks on the US. He was trying to explain that if you pick a side and get involved then expect some blowback. His point is that 9/11 or a similar event should have come as no surprise.

How do you mind your own business? What about food security, energy security, even just wars? Im not saying he doesnt have a point but its deeply complex stuff. Is it realistic to argue that the US can rewind the clock 150 years and return to isolationism?

There is a difference between non-interventionisim and isolationism. You engage with all nations through trade and diplomacy.

You can get all the oil you want if you have products to swop for it. The Iranians were selling oil to Israel through third parties in the seventies and eighties. Both sides knew the story, the important part was that their respective publics didn't.

BoyRacer · **Joined:** Jul 26, 2009 **Posts:** 10353

Rick Flair wrote:

Fair play to him alright.

But the Libertarain message gets alot more muddled here.

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

The clip is cut short to highlight the two or three individuals who cheered and imply this was indicative of the entire tea party. The full clip of Ron Pauls reply plus Michelle Bachman reply is here.

When Paul talks about freedom, he is talking about being free from coercion, assuming responsibility for yourself and not violating the property rights of others. His point is with the restriction of medical services and drugs through government licencing, is taking away peoples freedom of choice and the action of government is actually increasing the cost and making medical care less affordable so everyone is less free.

Ron Paul wrote:

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Ron Paul Watch or Vigil?

Who is online