Ron Paul Revolution

[SexMachine]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

How was the US “meddling” in Iranian affairs?[/quote]

Mosaddegh → Blowback

I cut your question because the rest was just extra BS that doesn’t even make sense in light of the fact that this section of the question is answerable.[/quote]

So you agree the US wasn’t “meddling” in Iranian affairs like Ron Paul said? It was “blowback” by a group of students from something that happened more than a quarter of a century before? Before they were born.

This is what the leader of the Iranian revolution(Khomeini) said, during the revolution, about Mosaddegh:

“He(Mosaddegh) was not a Muslim…and I said ‘He will be slapped’…and it did not take long before he was slapped(in the '53 coup)…and if he had lasted he would have slapped Islam.”

and

“Demonstrating for anybody’s bones(meaning Mosaddegh) and opposing Islam are not to be tolerated”

So, how did Mosaddegh’s ousting cause the embassy outrage more than a quarter of a century later by people who hated Mosaddegh? Go on.

[ZEB]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
And just to let you know, you [/quote]

And just to let you know I said MOSTLY! They are mostly 20 somethings. That means that there are others who do not fit that demographic. You have to read every word of a post to get the full meaning.

I have no clue who will win the next Presidential election. In fact, no one does.

I agree, I don’t know for sure either. I only know who WON’T WIN, and that’s Ron Paul.

However I can get behind someone who will be in my mind, the one to lead America back to her roots. Where she needs to be IMHO.

The America that Ron Paul wants to have never existed. Would you like to explain what Thomas Jefferson was doing invading Tripoli? Would Ron Paul have done that? LOL…honestly just stop it.

I cannot claim all your years of experience in politics. However I took serious notice when Obama took office. I knew, without a doubt he would be horrible. Obama has done nothing to show me to be wrong. Will Obama take office again? I sure hope not and I tell everyone my stance and my reason for it. I will debate anyone who ‘likes’ Obama and their reasons.

Well, you (and I) were right about that one weren’t we?

How many other people in the nomination spectrum can even stand up to the knowledge of Ron Paul? The consistent honesty?

The only thing Ron Paul has been consistently is…wrong!

[ZEB]

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

Pay no attention to him. He’s under this hysterical delusion that everyone who wants to vote for him is 20 years old. He does have a large youth following though.[/quote]

I wonder how many times I have to say that his followers are MOSTLY 20 something’s before you guys actually read it? And I have always said that his followers are MOSTLY 20 something’s but you don’t acknowledge that. Is it that you like simple conclusions and take what you want and run with it? Oh yeah…that’s right you are a Paul follower you like simple conclusions.

Carry on.

[666Rich]

Simple conclusions like following the works of Mises, rothbard, hayek and other austrian economists? Have you even read any economic literature, or are you just a follower of “political science”? If you knew anything, and I mean anything about economics you would see what Paul is saying about the economy, markets, the federal reserve, etc may be simple in tense, but are a much deeper rabbit hole. But go on, continue your support of Keynesian fallacies.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ron Paul supporters question time.

Ron Paul says that the Iranian hostage crisis occurred because the US was “meddling” in Iranian affairs.

Note: Col “Chargin’ Charlie” Beckwith on the Iranian hostage crisis:

"I said to him(CIA liason officer)…‘What we gotta do is get in touch with the stay-behind assets in country and task them with our intelligence requirements.’…He led me to a quiet corner and whispered the astonishing news, ‘We don’t have any.’

Question the first - How was the US “meddling” in Iranian affairs without any intelligence assets in Iran?[/quote]

Ummm…the CIA never lies. Never, I say.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

BTW, the CIA functions as a secret military of the US President. In fact they answer and are accountable to no one, not even congress.

They are the definition of evil and would sabotage an asset if it means acquiring an other “more worthy” asset.

[ZEB]

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Simple conclusions like following the works of Mises, rothbard, hayek and other austrian economists? Have you even read any economic literature, or are you just a follower of “political science”? If you knew anything, and I mean anything about economics you would see what Paul is saying about the economy, markets, the federal reserve, etc may be simple in tense, but are a much deeper rabbit hole. But go on, continue your support of Keynesian fallacies. [/quote]

I was talking more about his infantile foreign relations policies. And also his off the wall libertarian domestic views. Economically he’s a bit more sane.

[ZEB]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BTW, the CIA functions as a secret military of the US President. In fact they answer and are accountable to no one, not even congress.

They are the definition of evil and would sabotage an asset if it means acquiring an other “more worthy” asset.
[/quote]

And thank God for the CIA and the many pieces of legitimate intelligence that they’ve brought us. They have saved countless lives both military and civilian.

Evil is casting a wide libertarian net over everything that isn’t perfect.

[florelius]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Simple conclusions like following the works of Mises, rothbard, hayek and other austrian economists? Have you even read any economic literature, or are you just a follower of “political science”? If you knew anything, and I mean anything about economics you would see what Paul is saying about the economy, markets, the federal reserve, etc may be simple in tense, but are a much deeper rabbit hole. But go on, continue your support of Keynesian fallacies. [/quote]

I was talking more about his infantile foreign relations policies. And also his off the wall libertarian domestic views. Economically he’s a bit more sane.
[/quote]

Actually hes arguments for hes foreign policy are better than he`s economical arguments.

When he defends hes foreign policy he is actually able to create non-sircular arguments, but hes economical arguments are wery sircular: Its often a free market is best because a free market is best( simplified offcourse ). Just watched an interwiew with him at the daily show and he claimed that a 100% free market would be stricter regulated than a mixed economy, but he didnt make any arguments to why, he just stated it. Stating something without argumentation or proof to why the claim is true is a bad argument in my book.

But then I am europeen socialist, so I might be a bit subjectiv and selectiv when judging ron pauls political positions. In essence meaning I love the fact that a rightwing guy like paul has a stand on militarism that are similar to the far left, but he`s economical positions are offcourse on the other side of the spectrum from us socialists.
I agree though that its better to have more of the political power sentered closer to people( like states etc ), and that sentralisation of political power in a entity like your federalgovernment is a welcome sign for corruption and the like.

Just my opinion on the matter.

[ZEB]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Simple conclusions like following the works of Mises, rothbard, hayek and other austrian economists? Have you even read any economic literature, or are you just a follower of “political science”? If you knew anything, and I mean anything about economics you would see what Paul is saying about the economy, markets, the federal reserve, etc may be simple in tense, but are a much deeper rabbit hole. But go on, continue your support of Keynesian fallacies. [/quote]

I was talking more about his infantile foreign relations policies. And also his off the wall libertarian domestic views. Economically he’s a bit more sane.
[/quote]

Actually hes arguments for hes foreign policy are better than he`s economical arguments.

When he defends hes foreign policy he is actually able to create non-sircular arguments, but hes economical arguments are wery sircular: Its often a free market is best because a free market is best( simplified offcourse ). Just watched an interwiew with him at the daily show and he claimed that a 100% free market would be stricter regulated than a mixed economy, but he didnt make any arguments to why, he just stated it. Stating something without argumentation or proof to why the claim is true is a bad argument in my book.

But then I am europeen socialist, so I might be a bit subjectiv and selectiv when judging ron pauls political positions. In essence meaning I love the fact that a rightwing guy like paul has a stand on militarism that are similar to the far left, but he`s economical positions are offcourse on the other side of the spectrum from us socialists.
I agree though that its better to have more of the political power sentered closer to people( like states etc ), and that sentralisation of political power in a entity like your federalgovernment is a welcome sign for corruption and the like.

Just my opinion on the matter.[/quote]

And I always enjoy reading your views.

[TooHuman]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Simple conclusions like following the works of Mises, rothbard, hayek and other austrian economists? Have you even read any economic literature, or are you just a follower of “political science”? If you knew anything, and I mean anything about economics you would see what Paul is saying about the economy, markets, the federal reserve, etc may be simple in tense, but are a much deeper rabbit hole. But go on, continue your support of Keynesian fallacies. [/quote]

I was talking more about his infantile foreign relations policies. And also his off the wall libertarian domestic views. Economically he’s a bit more sane.
[/quote]

Actually hes arguments for hes foreign policy are better than he`s economical arguments.

When he defends hes foreign policy he is actually able to create non-sircular arguments, but hes economical arguments are wery sircular: Its often a free market is best because a free market is best( simplified offcourse ). Just watched an interwiew with him at the daily show and he claimed that a 100% free market would be stricter regulated than a mixed economy, but he didnt make any arguments to why, he just stated it. Stating something without argumentation or proof to why the claim is true is a bad argument in my book.

But then I am europeen socialist, so I might be a bit subjectiv and selectiv when judging ron pauls political positions. In essence meaning I love the fact that a rightwing guy like paul has a stand on militarism that are similar to the far left, but he`s economical positions are offcourse on the other side of the spectrum from us socialists.
I agree though that its better to have more of the political power sentered closer to people( like states etc ), and that sentralisation of political power in a entity like your federalgovernment is a welcome sign for corruption and the like.

Just my opinion on the matter.[/quote]

Paul’s arguments weren’t circular they were mostly just lazy and incoherent on the daily show. They appear to be circular and filled with non-sequiters because they are incomplete. In fact, several people I’ve talked to and heard comments from say the same thing about the interview. He did an extremely poor job even though he was given a lot of time to elaborate.

[florelius]

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Simple conclusions like following the works of Mises, rothbard, hayek and other austrian economists? Have you even read any economic literature, or are you just a follower of “political science”? If you knew anything, and I mean anything about economics you would see what Paul is saying about the economy, markets, the federal reserve, etc may be simple in tense, but are a much deeper rabbit hole. But go on, continue your support of Keynesian fallacies. [/quote]

I was talking more about his infantile foreign relations policies. And also his off the wall libertarian domestic views. Economically he’s a bit more sane.
[/quote]

Actually hes arguments for hes foreign policy are better than he`s economical arguments.

When he defends hes foreign policy he is actually able to create non-sircular arguments, but hes economical arguments are wery sircular: Its often a free market is best because a free market is best( simplified offcourse ). Just watched an interwiew with him at the daily show and he claimed that a 100% free market would be stricter regulated than a mixed economy, but he didnt make any arguments to why, he just stated it. Stating something without argumentation or proof to why the claim is true is a bad argument in my book.

But then I am europeen socialist, so I might be a bit subjectiv and selectiv when judging ron pauls political positions. In essence meaning I love the fact that a rightwing guy like paul has a stand on militarism that are similar to the far left, but he`s economical positions are offcourse on the other side of the spectrum from us socialists.
I agree though that its better to have more of the political power sentered closer to people( like states etc ), and that sentralisation of political power in a entity like your federalgovernment is a welcome sign for corruption and the like.

Just my opinion on the matter.[/quote]

Paul’s arguments weren’t circular they were mostly just lazy and incoherent on the daily show. They appear to be circular and filled with non-sequiters because they are incomplete. In fact, several people I’ve talked to and heard comments from say the same thing about the interview. He did an extremely poor job even though he was given a lot of time to elaborate.[/quote]

Doesnt help he`s case either way, especially when you consider that stewart whent easy on him.

but perhaps your right, that he`s arguments for free market capitalism arent sircular just incomplete and therefor could be mistaken for sircular arguments. Still a incomplete argument aint regarded by anybody to be a strong argument.

[florelius]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Simple conclusions like following the works of Mises, rothbard, hayek and other austrian economists? Have you even read any economic literature, or are you just a follower of “political science”? If you knew anything, and I mean anything about economics you would see what Paul is saying about the economy, markets, the federal reserve, etc may be simple in tense, but are a much deeper rabbit hole. But go on, continue your support of Keynesian fallacies. [/quote]

I was talking more about his infantile foreign relations policies. And also his off the wall libertarian domestic views. Economically he’s a bit more sane.
[/quote]

Actually hes arguments for hes foreign policy are better than he`s economical arguments.

When he defends hes foreign policy he is actually able to create non-sircular arguments, but hes economical arguments are wery sircular: Its often a free market is best because a free market is best( simplified offcourse ). Just watched an interwiew with him at the daily show and he claimed that a 100% free market would be stricter regulated than a mixed economy, but he didnt make any arguments to why, he just stated it. Stating something without argumentation or proof to why the claim is true is a bad argument in my book.

But then I am europeen socialist, so I might be a bit subjectiv and selectiv when judging ron pauls political positions. In essence meaning I love the fact that a rightwing guy like paul has a stand on militarism that are similar to the far left, but he`s economical positions are offcourse on the other side of the spectrum from us socialists.
I agree though that its better to have more of the political power sentered closer to people( like states etc ), and that sentralisation of political power in a entity like your federalgovernment is a welcome sign for corruption and the like.

Just my opinion on the matter.[/quote]

And I always enjoy reading your views.[/quote]

I`m happy to enjoy you.

ps. Hope to see some of more of your analysis of the political game, we might dont see eye to eye on many issues, but your posts about how the political game works are just great to read and informative. I Learn alot from reading your posts about that.

[TooHuman]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Simple conclusions like following the works of Mises, rothbard, hayek and other austrian economists? Have you even read any economic literature, or are you just a follower of “political science”? If you knew anything, and I mean anything about economics you would see what Paul is saying about the economy, markets, the federal reserve, etc may be simple in tense, but are a much deeper rabbit hole. But go on, continue your support of Keynesian fallacies. [/quote]

I was talking more about his infantile foreign relations policies. And also his off the wall libertarian domestic views. Economically he’s a bit more sane.
[/quote]

Actually hes arguments for hes foreign policy are better than he`s economical arguments.

When he defends hes foreign policy he is actually able to create non-sircular arguments, but hes economical arguments are wery sircular: Its often a free market is best because a free market is best( simplified offcourse ). Just watched an interwiew with him at the daily show and he claimed that a 100% free market would be stricter regulated than a mixed economy, but he didnt make any arguments to why, he just stated it. Stating something without argumentation or proof to why the claim is true is a bad argument in my book.

But then I am europeen socialist, so I might be a bit subjectiv and selectiv when judging ron pauls political positions. In essence meaning I love the fact that a rightwing guy like paul has a stand on militarism that are similar to the far left, but he`s economical positions are offcourse on the other side of the spectrum from us socialists.
I agree though that its better to have more of the political power sentered closer to people( like states etc ), and that sentralisation of political power in a entity like your federalgovernment is a welcome sign for corruption and the like.

Just my opinion on the matter.[/quote]

Paul’s arguments weren’t circular they were mostly just lazy and incoherent on the daily show. They appear to be circular and filled with non-sequiters because they are incomplete. In fact, several people I’ve talked to and heard comments from say the same thing about the interview. He did an extremely poor job even though he was given a lot of time to elaborate.[/quote]

Doesnt help he`s case either way, especially when you consider that stewart whent easy on him.

but perhaps your right, that he`s arguments for free market capitalism arent sircular just incomplete and therefor could be mistaken for sircular arguments. Still a incomplete argument aint regarded by anybody to be a strong argument.
[/quote]
Ron is just the most visible proponent of the Austrian School. Definitely not the most effective one, although this interview was particularly bad.

I’d also like to add that there’s nothing unique about Paul’s arguments. They are founded in the Austrian School. It’s ironic(and somewhat sad) that in this interview when he’s given the most time(on tv) he does maybe his worst job of being thorough.

[florelius]

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Simple conclusions like following the works of Mises, rothbard, hayek and other austrian economists? Have you even read any economic literature, or are you just a follower of “political science”? If you knew anything, and I mean anything about economics you would see what Paul is saying about the economy, markets, the federal reserve, etc may be simple in tense, but are a much deeper rabbit hole. But go on, continue your support of Keynesian fallacies. [/quote]

I was talking more about his infantile foreign relations policies. And also his off the wall libertarian domestic views. Economically he’s a bit more sane.
[/quote]

Actually hes arguments for hes foreign policy are better than he`s economical arguments.

When he defends hes foreign policy he is actually able to create non-sircular arguments, but hes economical arguments are wery sircular: Its often a free market is best because a free market is best( simplified offcourse ). Just watched an interwiew with him at the daily show and he claimed that a 100% free market would be stricter regulated than a mixed economy, but he didnt make any arguments to why, he just stated it. Stating something without argumentation or proof to why the claim is true is a bad argument in my book.

But then I am europeen socialist, so I might be a bit subjectiv and selectiv when judging ron pauls political positions. In essence meaning I love the fact that a rightwing guy like paul has a stand on militarism that are similar to the far left, but he`s economical positions are offcourse on the other side of the spectrum from us socialists.
I agree though that its better to have more of the political power sentered closer to people( like states etc ), and that sentralisation of political power in a entity like your federalgovernment is a welcome sign for corruption and the like.

Just my opinion on the matter.[/quote]

Paul’s arguments weren’t circular they were mostly just lazy and incoherent on the daily show. They appear to be circular and filled with non-sequiters because they are incomplete. In fact, several people I’ve talked to and heard comments from say the same thing about the interview. He did an extremely poor job even though he was given a lot of time to elaborate.[/quote]

Doesnt help he`s case either way, especially when you consider that stewart whent easy on him.

but perhaps your right, that he`s arguments for free market capitalism arent sircular just incomplete and therefor could be mistaken for sircular arguments. Still a incomplete argument aint regarded by anybody to be a strong argument.
[/quote]
Ron is just the most visible proponent of the Austrian School. Definitely not the most effective one, although this interview was particularly bad.

I’d also like to add that there’s nothing unique about Paul’s arguments. They are founded in the Austrian School. It’s ironic(and somewhat sad) that in this interview when he’s given the most time(on tv) he does maybe his worst job of being thorough.[/quote]

Yhea that is sad, because he seems like a guy who has hes heart in the right place and therefor it is sad he aint able to explain himself properly. But I dont think it hurts him that bad because what sets him apart and whats makes him a likeable figure is hes agitation against militarism and that is also what makes him a person who should be in the spotlight( not president perhaps, but he deserves to be on tv etc ). He`s economical wiew form my leftist and europeen perspective doesnt seem that different from what other american conservatives say, so its not what sets him apart or attract people.

Again just my opinion about ron paul.

[TooHuman]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Simple conclusions like following the works of Mises, rothbard, hayek and other austrian economists? Have you even read any economic literature, or are you just a follower of “political science”? If you knew anything, and I mean anything about economics you would see what Paul is saying about the economy, markets, the federal reserve, etc may be simple in tense, but are a much deeper rabbit hole. But go on, continue your support of Keynesian fallacies. [/quote]

I was talking more about his infantile foreign relations policies. And also his off the wall libertarian domestic views. Economically he’s a bit more sane.
[/quote]

Actually hes arguments for hes foreign policy are better than he`s economical arguments.

When he defends hes foreign policy he is actually able to create non-sircular arguments, but hes economical arguments are wery sircular: Its often a free market is best because a free market is best( simplified offcourse ). Just watched an interwiew with him at the daily show and he claimed that a 100% free market would be stricter regulated than a mixed economy, but he didnt make any arguments to why, he just stated it. Stating something without argumentation or proof to why the claim is true is a bad argument in my book.

But then I am europeen socialist, so I might be a bit subjectiv and selectiv when judging ron pauls political positions. In essence meaning I love the fact that a rightwing guy like paul has a stand on militarism that are similar to the far left, but he`s economical positions are offcourse on the other side of the spectrum from us socialists.
I agree though that its better to have more of the political power sentered closer to people( like states etc ), and that sentralisation of political power in a entity like your federalgovernment is a welcome sign for corruption and the like.

Just my opinion on the matter.[/quote]

Paul’s arguments weren’t circular they were mostly just lazy and incoherent on the daily show. They appear to be circular and filled with non-sequiters because they are incomplete. In fact, several people I’ve talked to and heard comments from say the same thing about the interview. He did an extremely poor job even though he was given a lot of time to elaborate.[/quote]

Doesnt help he`s case either way, especially when you consider that stewart whent easy on him.

but perhaps your right, that he`s arguments for free market capitalism arent sircular just incomplete and therefor could be mistaken for sircular arguments. Still a incomplete argument aint regarded by anybody to be a strong argument.
[/quote]
Ron is just the most visible proponent of the Austrian School. Definitely not the most effective one, although this interview was particularly bad.

I’d also like to add that there’s nothing unique about Paul’s arguments. They are founded in the Austrian School. It’s ironic(and somewhat sad) that in this interview when he’s given the most time(on tv) he does maybe his worst job of being thorough.[/quote]

Yhea that is sad, because he seems like a guy who has hes heart in the right place and therefor it is sad he aint able to explain himself properly. But I dont think it hurts him that bad because what sets him apart and whats makes him a likeable figure is hes agitation against militarism and that is also what makes him a person who should be in the spotlight( not president perhaps, but he deserves to be on tv etc ). He`s economical wiew form my leftist and europeen perspective doesnt seem that different from what other american conservatives say, so its not what sets him apart or attract people.

Again just my opinion about ron paul.[/quote]

There’s no distinction between Ron’s stated positions on foreign policy and domestic policy. Both exist under the the principals of human action described by the Austrain School. The only reason conservatives seem similar is because people have an easier time understanding the price system in terms of dollars than in terms of things like death, fear, hunger, etc…

[florelius]

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Simple conclusions like following the works of Mises, rothbard, hayek and other austrian economists? Have you even read any economic literature, or are you just a follower of “political science”? If you knew anything, and I mean anything about economics you would see what Paul is saying about the economy, markets, the federal reserve, etc may be simple in tense, but are a much deeper rabbit hole. But go on, continue your support of Keynesian fallacies. [/quote]

I was talking more about his infantile foreign relations policies. And also his off the wall libertarian domestic views. Economically he’s a bit more sane.
[/quote]

Actually hes arguments for hes foreign policy are better than he`s economical arguments.

When he defends hes foreign policy he is actually able to create non-sircular arguments, but hes economical arguments are wery sircular: Its often a free market is best because a free market is best( simplified offcourse ). Just watched an interwiew with him at the daily show and he claimed that a 100% free market would be stricter regulated than a mixed economy, but he didnt make any arguments to why, he just stated it. Stating something without argumentation or proof to why the claim is true is a bad argument in my book.

But then I am europeen socialist, so I might be a bit subjectiv and selectiv when judging ron pauls political positions. In essence meaning I love the fact that a rightwing guy like paul has a stand on militarism that are similar to the far left, but he`s economical positions are offcourse on the other side of the spectrum from us socialists.
I agree though that its better to have more of the political power sentered closer to people( like states etc ), and that sentralisation of political power in a entity like your federalgovernment is a welcome sign for corruption and the like.

Just my opinion on the matter.[/quote]

Paul’s arguments weren’t circular they were mostly just lazy and incoherent on the daily show. They appear to be circular and filled with non-sequiters because they are incomplete. In fact, several people I’ve talked to and heard comments from say the same thing about the interview. He did an extremely poor job even though he was given a lot of time to elaborate.[/quote]

Doesnt help he`s case either way, especially when you consider that stewart whent easy on him.

but perhaps your right, that he`s arguments for free market capitalism arent sircular just incomplete and therefor could be mistaken for sircular arguments. Still a incomplete argument aint regarded by anybody to be a strong argument.
[/quote]
Ron is just the most visible proponent of the Austrian School. Definitely not the most effective one, although this interview was particularly bad.

I’d also like to add that there’s nothing unique about Paul’s arguments. They are founded in the Austrian School. It’s ironic(and somewhat sad) that in this interview when he’s given the most time(on tv) he does maybe his worst job of being thorough.[/quote]

Yhea that is sad, because he seems like a guy who has hes heart in the right place and therefor it is sad he aint able to explain himself properly. But I dont think it hurts him that bad because what sets him apart and whats makes him a likeable figure is hes agitation against militarism and that is also what makes him a person who should be in the spotlight( not president perhaps, but he deserves to be on tv etc ). He`s economical wiew form my leftist and europeen perspective doesnt seem that different from what other american conservatives say, so its not what sets him apart or attract people.

Again just my opinion about ron paul.[/quote]

There’s no distinction between Ron’s stated positions on foreign policy and domestic policy. Both exist under the the principals of human action described by the Austrain School. The only reason conservatives seem similar is because people have an easier time understanding the price system in terms of dollars than in terms of things like death, fear, hunger, etc…[/quote]

hm could you elaborat on the last bit, I didnt understand it I think. ( the one with price system understood easier than death… etc )

[TooHuman]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Simple conclusions like following the works of Mises, rothbard, hayek and other austrian economists? Have you even read any economic literature, or are you just a follower of “political science”? If you knew anything, and I mean anything about economics you would see what Paul is saying about the economy, markets, the federal reserve, etc may be simple in tense, but are a much deeper rabbit hole. But go on, continue your support of Keynesian fallacies. [/quote]

I was talking more about his infantile foreign relations policies. And also his off the wall libertarian domestic views. Economically he’s a bit more sane.
[/quote]

Actually hes arguments for hes foreign policy are better than he`s economical arguments.

When he defends hes foreign policy he is actually able to create non-sircular arguments, but hes economical arguments are wery sircular: Its often a free market is best because a free market is best( simplified offcourse ). Just watched an interwiew with him at the daily show and he claimed that a 100% free market would be stricter regulated than a mixed economy, but he didnt make any arguments to why, he just stated it. Stating something without argumentation or proof to why the claim is true is a bad argument in my book.

But then I am europeen socialist, so I might be a bit subjectiv and selectiv when judging ron pauls political positions. In essence meaning I love the fact that a rightwing guy like paul has a stand on militarism that are similar to the far left, but he`s economical positions are offcourse on the other side of the spectrum from us socialists.
I agree though that its better to have more of the political power sentered closer to people( like states etc ), and that sentralisation of political power in a entity like your federalgovernment is a welcome sign for corruption and the like.

Just my opinion on the matter.[/quote]

Paul’s arguments weren’t circular they were mostly just lazy and incoherent on the daily show. They appear to be circular and filled with non-sequiters because they are incomplete. In fact, several people I’ve talked to and heard comments from say the same thing about the interview. He did an extremely poor job even though he was given a lot of time to elaborate.[/quote]

Doesnt help he`s case either way, especially when you consider that stewart whent easy on him.

but perhaps your right, that he`s arguments for free market capitalism arent sircular just incomplete and therefor could be mistaken for sircular arguments. Still a incomplete argument aint regarded by anybody to be a strong argument.
[/quote]
Ron is just the most visible proponent of the Austrian School. Definitely not the most effective one, although this interview was particularly bad.

I’d also like to add that there’s nothing unique about Paul’s arguments. They are founded in the Austrian School. It’s ironic(and somewhat sad) that in this interview when he’s given the most time(on tv) he does maybe his worst job of being thorough.[/quote]

Yhea that is sad, because he seems like a guy who has hes heart in the right place and therefor it is sad he aint able to explain himself properly. But I dont think it hurts him that bad because what sets him apart and whats makes him a likeable figure is hes agitation against militarism and that is also what makes him a person who should be in the spotlight( not president perhaps, but he deserves to be on tv etc ). He`s economical wiew form my leftist and europeen perspective doesnt seem that different from what other american conservatives say, so its not what sets him apart or attract people.

Again just my opinion about ron paul.[/quote]

There’s no distinction between Ron’s stated positions on foreign policy and domestic policy. Both exist under the the principals of human action described by the Austrain School. The only reason conservatives seem similar is because people have an easier time understanding the price system in terms of dollars than in terms of things like death, fear, hunger, etc…[/quote]

hm could you elaborat on the last bit, I didnt understand it I think. ( the one with price system understood easier than death… etc )[/quote]

Economics is about human action. Prices are subjective so anything tangible or non-tangible can be modeled as a “cost” in supply and demand i.e. the price system.
Money is just a special case in that model, as is US FED notes(Dollars).

[big4fan]

boys… he backed up free market saying they would make less risky bets because no one would bail them out. i’m no free market fundy, but it has its merits.

[SexMachine]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ron Paul supporters question time.

Ron Paul says that the Iranian hostage crisis occurred because the US was “meddling” in Iranian affairs.

Note: Col “Chargin’ Charlie” Beckwith on the Iranian hostage crisis:

"I said to him(CIA liason officer)…‘What we gotta do is get in touch with the stay-behind assets in country and task them with our intelligence requirements.’…He led me to a quiet corner and whispered the astonishing news, ‘We don’t have any.’

Question the first - How was the US “meddling” in Iranian affairs without any intelligence assets in Iran?[/quote]

Ummm…the CIA never lies. Never, I say.[/quote]

Either you don’t know the context or you’re even stupider than I previously gave you credit for. The CIA officer was the liason between Delta Force(the people tasked with rescuing the hostages) and the CIA. Why would the CIA lie to the hostage rescuers? Why would the CIA want the hostage rescue team to fail and the hostages to remain in Iran? Is the CIA in league with the Ayatollahs? What’s the motive? Where’s the evidence? Is there no end to this bullshit?