From: GaryOak151 | #097 XFD Ulti seriously believe ron paul didn't write the newsletters
How can you seriously believe he wrote the newsletters? Both the writing style and the content are completely different than anything that he has ever said before.
Most people who have actually done the research have come to the conclusion that the controversial statements in the letters were most likely written by a friend of Paul's, Lew Rockwell. It also should be noted that this objectionable content is very sparse, and most of the content in the newsletters lacked that sort of tinge. If Paul were casually reading the newsletters (and having published like 6 different newsletters, it is doubtful that he had time to thoroughly read them all), he very easily could have missed the content in question.
In any case, even people who know him in real life but disagree with him will admit that those inflammatory statements are entirely out of character.
--
My Japanese alter-ego. Hey all this is Bartz btw.
Isn't the problem with returning to the gold standard that the US government does not have sufficient gold reserves (or ability to obtain sufficient gold reserves) to not lose massive amounts of money from doing so? I don't know a lot about it, but that's what I heard as an explanation for why going back to the gold standard would be insane. So while it was probably a bad idea to have abandoned the gold standard, having done so, it would make matters worse to try and go back to it.
Also IIRC, Ron Paul has substantial holdings in gold. The US government returning to the gold standard would obviously give a big boost to the value of gold, which would cause Paul's personal fortune to skyrocket. While you can argue that his investments in gold are simply a case of him living up to his beliefs, I think it only fair that we question the motives of a man who would, as President,take a course of action that could bankrupt the country while personally enriching himself. You would criticize such an act from any other politician; Ron Paul should not get a pass.
Also IIRC, Ron Paul has substantial holdings in gold. The US government returning to the gold standard would obviously give a big boost to the value of gold, which would cause Paul's personal fortune to skyrocket. While you can argue that his investments in gold are simply a case of him living up to his beliefs, I think it only fair that we question the motives of a man who would, as President,take a course of action that could bankrupt the country while personally enriching himself. You would criticize such an act from any other politician; Ron Paul should not get a pass.
Everyone with decent economic knowledge has substantial holdings in gold. What, Ron is supposed to favor an idiotic policy that bankrupts the nation and benefits the elite over the average citizen just because he would ALSO benefit from getting rid of it?
Mitt Romney has "substantial holdings" in US Dollars. Should we question whether his attempt to prevent the gold standard is based on enriching himself?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I like how you completely ignored what I said about returning to the gold standard possibly making things WORSE for the nation. If you disagree fine, but explain why what I said was wrong.
From: Dauntless Hunter | #104 I like how you completely ignored what I said about returning to the gold standard possibly making things WORSE for the nation. If you disagree fine, but explain why what I said was wrong.
You're giving into the fallacy that somehow gold is an alternative to investments. It isn't. It's an alternative to dollars. I won't claim to know for a fact whether the gold standard would "bankrupt the nation" (as if we aren't already?). But if you're going to make implications that Ron Paul favors sound money solely because he will benefit financially, then we might as well question whether every other candidate only favors fiat currency because THEY benefit financially from THAT choice of money.
And I wonder, exactly how substantial are Paul's holdings in Gold? Let's say the Gold standard somehow completely collapses the currency and makes dollars worth zero. Provided his holdings in PMs are anything less than half of his entire portfolio, he still loses more than he gains.
I mean, I have 5% of my net worth invested in PMs. If the currency collapses, that's absolutely great news for my 5% investment.... and it also means that 95% of my net worth is now worthless, so I'm not exactly hoping for hyperinflation here...
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
How about the time Paul wouldn't use the bathroom of a gay person? Or his support of Abortion laws? Or the fact that if Japan had not bombed us he wouldn't have joined the war? Or him being against sexual harassment laws at work? Or his opposition to the Voting Rights Act or Civil Rights act?
How about the time Paul wouldn't use the bathroom of a gay person?
An alleged anecdote with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Or his support of Abortion laws?
Uh, yeah. He's pro-life. So are a lot of people. Deal with it.
Or the fact that if Japan had not bombed us he wouldn't have joined the war?
That's what consistent foreign policy looks like. I understand how you'd be confused.
Or him being against sexual harassment laws at work? Or his opposition to the Voting Rights Act or Civil Rights act?
Both areas where the government has no business regulating voluntary transactions between private citizens. At least, Sexual Harassment and Civil Rights Acts are. I assume his opposition to the Voting Rights Act is a mere constitutional issue, separation of powers between federal and state and what have you.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
From: GaryOak151 | #106 How about the time Paul wouldn't use the bathroom of a gay person?
Most old Christian people are uncomfortable around homosexuals. It's a hallmark of their generation. Paul is not in favor of a federal ban of same-sex marriages, though, which puts him above most other republicans on gay rights.
Or his support of Abortion laws?
He supports overturning Roe v. Wade as he is an advocate of states rights.
Or the fact that if Japan had not bombed us he wouldn't have joined the war?
He wouldn't have gotten involved in a war unless we were attacked? OH THE CONTROVERSY
Or his opposition to the Voting Rights Act or Civil Rights act?
He is against federal oversights that he sees are unconstitutional. He has said that he has no problem with the intention of these acts, just not the methods in which they were presented.
Even if he were racist or homophobic, why would that be such a huge deal? The American conscience is f***ing backwards that we will tolerate all kinds of dishonesty, marital infidelity, and stupidity, but one peep of supposed bigotry and OMG THE WORST PERSON EVER.
--
My Japanese alter-ego. Hey all this is Bartz btw.
i guess you could hit Obama for dishonesty but he's 100% a family man who (as far as we know) hasn't cheated. He's also pretty clearly not stupid or bigoted.
From: GaryOak151 | #111 i guess you could hit Obama for dishonesty but he's 100% a family man who (as far as we know) hasn't cheated. He's also pretty clearly not stupid or bigoted.
The infidelity part was more at Clinton and Gingrich and stupidity more at Bush and Perry, but yeah you could certainly hit Obama for dishonesty.
And w_c you are showing right there that you don't even care that Obama is dishonest. It's like "oh well yeah I guess he lies sometimes but whatever as long as he's not racist"
Oh has anyone brought up Obama's close association with racist pastor Jeremiah Wright? Let's not forget that if we are slinging mud around.
--
My Japanese alter-ego. Hey all this is Bartz btw.
And w_c you are showing right there that you don't even care that Obama is dishonest. It's like "oh well yeah I guess he lies sometimes but whatever as long as he's not racist"
Most of the leftists on Board 8 have already admitted this. A large number said that they think and hope that Barack Obama is lying on his position on gay marriage, for example, as well as his religious beliefs. Many have clearly stated that they don't care whether a politician lies or not, only that they agree with them on whatever social issues.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
No serious person believes Obama is stupid or bigoted.
Obama has been disappointing to me. He's caved too often and some of his stated positions he campaigned on he has barely fought for. I do believe he wants to do those things so I don't classify it as dishonest but see how one would.
I do believe he wants to do those things so I don't classify it as dishonest but see how one would.
Do you believe that Obama prefers marriage be defined as between one man and one woman? Because that was his official stated position during the campaign and as far as I know he has not changed it.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I believe his view is evolving. He's a religious man. I don't agree with his position but I knew from day one that nutty dennis was the only canidate who wanted legalized gay marriage and I have a better chance of being president than that dude.
Ron Paul today joined the ACLU and other civil rights groups in openly criticizing President Obama for signing the NDAA over the weekend. Rep. Paul has been the only candidate so far to do this.
--
My Japanese alter-ego. Hey all this is Bartz btw.
If I'm not mistaken, Ron Paul has said that we've never seen how a completely unregulated market works because it's never existed. Do you disagree with him?
We were close enough from roughly 1800 to 1929. It was a huge success.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
And I wonder, exactly how substantial are Paul's holdings in Gold? Let's say the Gold standard somehow completely collapses the currency and makes dollars worth zero. Provided his holdings in PMs are anything less than half of his entire portfolio, he still loses more than he gains.
I mean, I have 5% of my net worth invested in PMs. If the currency collapses, that's absolutely great news for my 5% investment.... and it also means that 95% of my net worth is now worthless, so I'm not exactly hoping for hyperinflation here...
That's not exactly true. If you have 5% of your net worth in gold, and we get hyperinflation, the value in gold in dollars will go up 100x, 1000x, 1 million times, who knows. As long as it goes up more than 20x, you win, even if the other 95% of your investments go to zero. And if they do go to zero because of hyperinflation, you bet gold is going to skyrocket massively.
Also, I'm guessing a large part of the other 95% is held in stocks, which will inflate with hyperinflation, so they won't do anything like lose all their value. If you have extensive dollar or fixed income investments, well, inflation is the risk you take when you buy those things. But you and RP probably don't have much of those given your opinions on the dollar.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
How about the time Paul wouldn't use the bathroom of a gay person?
He has limited control over his personal feelings, and in any case it is irrelevant. What is relevant are his political positions, over which he has full control.
Or his support of Abortion laws?
Good.
Or the fact that if Japan had not bombed us he wouldn't have joined the war?
That puts him in line with FDR and most of America in 1941, so it's not really controversial.
Or him being against sexual harassment laws at work?
This sounds bad, but what exactly are these sexual harassment laws? Are they fair laws that protect people without capriciously punishing others? Congress passes bad laws that sound good all the time. It's very hard to oppose them because they sound good, and that's why Congress has put us in such a bad position today. I don't know if I favor these particular laws that Paul is against without further research, but I would not be surprised if I agreed with him here.
Or his opposition to the Voting Rights Act or Civil Rights act?
Probably on uber strict construction states rights grounds.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
People saying Ron Paul isn't in the least bit conservative on key social issues is deluding himself just because he has great views on basically everything else.
The problem is that the public cares a lot about these key social issues. And the media follow. Of course this is a vicious circle.
People saying Ron Paul isn't in the least bit conservative on key social issues is deluding himself just because he has great views on basically everything else.
Ron Paul has plenty of conservative opinions on key social issues.
The difference between him and everyone else (Republican or Democrat) is that he has no plans on legislating based on his personal opinions. CERTAINLY not at the Federal Level at least.
Even if you wanted to believe that Ron Paul was racist, you'd have to not only believe he has racist beliefs, but that his racist beliefs are more important and critical to him than his libertarian beliefs. Good luck trying to justify or prove that one.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
From: SmartMuffin | #125 The difference between him and everyone else (Republican or Democrat) is that he has no plans on legislating based on his personal opinions. CERTAINLY not at the Federal Level at least.
Even if you wanted to believe that Ron Paul was racist, you'd have to not only believe he has racist beliefs, but that his racist beliefs are more important and critical to him than his libertarian beliefs. Good luck trying to justify or prove that one.
I'm not debating that. The problem is that presidents RARELY legislate laws surrounding social issues based on their own personal opinion, but that during election times these opinions do matter a lot.
And whether he's racist or not is debatable. His belief is that he doesn't view people in certain groups, but as individuals. And that makes statements like 'only 5% of black people have sensible political opinions' not racist in his eyes, because he bases himself on the individual only. It does not mean other people won't take that statement and publicize it everywhere as racist. Because it is a slippery slope.