[quote]rainjack wrote:
Ron Paul needs to change his views on monetary policy, and foregin policy. [/quote]
Uhhhh…then he would just be an other Republican dumbass like the morons who shared a stage with him at the debates.
The monetary and foreign policy of the republicrats are the root cause of all the problems related to government.
If you don’t get that then you don’t get it at all.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Ron Paul needs to change his views on monetary policy, and foregin policy.
Uhhhh…then he would just be an other Republican dumbass like the morons who shared a stage with him at the debates.
The monetary and foreign policy of the republicrats are the root cause of all the problems related to government.
If you don’t get that then you don’t get it at all.[/quote]
You don’t cut and run. Period. You fight to win.
His desire to be on the gold standard, or some bullshit dual standard cost him tons of support from real people.
You are based in theory - not reality. So is Paul’s monetary and foreign policies.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
His desire to be on the gold standard, or some bullshit dual standard cost him tons of support from real people.
You are based in theory - not reality. So is Paul’s monetary and foreign policies.
[/quote]
His desire is to have money return to a function of the market and not be controlled by central planning – if it happens to turn up as gold so be it; there is not reason why competing standards could not emerge. He would never deign to tell the market what money to choose because that isn’t the proper role of government. Only the market can determine what money should be.
You trust the market to provide TVs, cars, computers, cell phones but you don’t trust it to provide money?
You bitch and moan about the idea of government health care but not about its money…?
Do you not see a contradiction with any of this?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Ron Paul needs to change his views on monetary policy, and foregin policy.
You are based in theory - not reality. So is Paul’s monetary and foreign policies.
[/quote]
On this, we agree-- sort of.
Foreign Policy:
RP said several times he would have stayed the course in Iraq. He just wanted a formal Declaration of War from Congress (per the Constitution).
Monetary: Agreed. I don’t think he would have been able to do anything about it, so I just left it as rhetoric.
I caucused for him because of his lifetime voting record. I’m not a one-issue-pony like most of the sheeple. His record of voting Constitution first is second to none. I was willing to forego my differences with him because, as a whole, he was by far the closest candidate to someone I could vote ‘FOR’— no one since Harry Browne has done that (for me).
His veto pen would have been the most formidable weapon of all.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Only roughly half of those voters are required. If McCain could have held on to ~ 3 million of them he may have won.[/quote]
We decided to stay home.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Ron Paul needs to change his views on monetary policy, and foregin policy.
You are based in theory - not reality. So is Paul’s monetary and foreign policies.
On this, we agree-- sort of.
Foreign Policy:
RP said several times he would have stayed the course in Iraq. He just wanted a formal Declaration of War from Congress (per the Constitution).
Monetary: Agreed. I don’t think he would have been able to do anything about it, so I just left it as rhetoric.
I caucused for him because of his lifetime voting record. I’m not a one-issue-pony like most of the sheeple. His record of voting Constitution first is second to none.
I was willing to forego my differences with him because, as a whole, he was by far the closest candidate to someone I could vote ‘FOR’— no one since Harry Browne has done that (for me).
His veto pen would have been the most formidable weapon of all.[/quote]
I’m curious about your RP/Iraq statement. I’ve always understood (and am pretty darn sure) that he was always against the war, and would’ve pulled the troops out. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you meant by saying he would’ve stayed the course in Iraq.
depending on which economist you ask (I like Peter Schiff’s ideas myself), most of our economic problems can be laid to blame on our monetary policy and the existence of the Fed.
[quote]Ren wrote:
depending on which economist you ask (I like Peter Schiff’s ideas myself), most of our economic problems can be laid to blame on our monetary policy and the existence of the Fed.[/quote]
I am not an economist - but I know returning to the gold standard is not a real option.
People who read books and avoid everyday life might want a gold standard, but you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m curious about your RP/Iraq statement. I’ve always understood (and am pretty darn sure) that he was always against the war, and would’ve pulled the troops out. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you meant by saying he would’ve stayed the course in Iraq. [/quote]
This is what I gathered as well. Fine with me if we never went to Iraq. But Bush dropped the ball miserably by not prosecuting a faster war with extreme prejudice.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Ren wrote:
depending on which economist you ask (I like Peter Schiff’s ideas myself), most of our economic problems can be laid to blame on our monetary policy and the existence of the Fed.
I am not an economist - but I know returning to the gold standard is not a real option.
People who read books and avoid everyday life might want a gold standard, but you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. [/quote]
Not only does the gold standard bring a whole new set of problems by tying commerce and transactions to how much metal we can dig out of the ground the transition to get there would be a catastrophe.
You cannot simply hit reset in the real world.
We need sound, responsible fiscal policies from our government. (I can dream, can’t I)
Ron Paul would have gotten whitesmoked.
America is, by and large, a center-right country. That “center” - who drifted away from McCain (look at the numbers) would not have been interested in a slightly dazed demagogue with moonbat policies and zero command presence.
You can love him, you can hang posters of him in your room - hell, you can name your kid after him. But he was and has always been a fringe candidate who never had a shot at at winning a national election, and we should be collectively thankful for that - no one would discredit conservative politics faster than a Ron Paul.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Ren wrote:
depending on which economist you ask (I like Peter Schiff’s ideas myself), most of our economic problems can be laid to blame on our monetary policy and the existence of the Fed.
I am not an economist - but I know returning to the gold standard is not a real option.
People who read books and avoid everyday life might want a gold standard, but you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
Not only does the gold standard bring a whole new set of problems by tying commerce and transactions to how much metal we can dig out of the ground the transition to get there would be a catastrophe.
You cannot simply hit reset in the real world.
We need sound, responsible fiscal policies from our government. (I can dream, can’t I)[/quote]
And the world.
By the way, voter turnout stats have not changed significantly.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
no one would discredit conservative politics faster than a Ron Paul.[/quote]
No doubt, this is some of the “whitesmoke” you are talking about.
Please…his campaign was never about saving the conservative movement and it never was. It was about preserving liberty and allowing freedom to work.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m curious about your RP/Iraq statement. I’ve always understood (and am pretty darn sure) that he was always against the war, and would’ve pulled the troops out. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you meant by saying he would’ve stayed the course in Iraq. [/quote]
My bad-- dropped a ‘not’ as in ‘not have stayed the course’. His main opposition (in addition to many others) was Congress not declaring war on Iraq:
His own words (from 2002): The War on Truth - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
My point was that RJ was pretty much correct in his assessment of RP. His Iraq stance contributed most to his non-nomination. I was not happy with Iraq, but understand you can’t just pull the troops out. On that, I disagreed with RP. I still campaigned for him.
[quote]ComixGuy wrote:
By the way, voter turnout stats have not changed significantly.
[/quote]
From wikipedia
Turnout
The voter turnout for this election was broadly predicted to be very high.[87] One widely publicized early estimate predicted turnout of 136.6 million people or 64% of the voting population?which would have been the highest rate in 100 years.[88] However, as of 4 p.m. Eastern Time on November 10, with 99.7% of the precincts reporting, the total number of votes stands at only 125.2 million, just 2.9 million more than in the 2004 election.[89]