To the People: The use of Ad Homenim attacks: Ad Ignorantiam attacks Strawman arguments other logical fallacies does not prove your argument right or your opponent wrong. The only way to show information is in a manner excluding the simple 6th grade argument of your stupid so what you say must be wrong cause, your stupid. I am a Ron Paul supporter and I find it truly irritating to see those people on the other side of this debate using those tactics, let alone the people I am allied with.
U.S. congress is trying to pass legislation that threatens free speech and innovation on the Internet, under the banner of anti-piracy efforts. On January 24th, the U.S. Senate will vote on the PROTECT IP Act to censor the Internet, despite opposition from the vast majority of Americans
Hello? Ron Paul wants to dismantle the federal reserve. I.e. destroy the financial elite's control of America. He wants to stop the bankers who run the country, government, and control the media, and who make money by default by rigging the financial markets.
Even if he succeeded in doing this without getting assassinated like JFK, the bankers are truly global anyway.
so the globalist are willing to kill more people and ruin other peoples life so they can buy 30 bedroom mansions? every single day many familes live in misery...i just wish they were put in the shoes of all those poor people so they see how it feels to be one of them
This man raped me and my children he is a horrible man.Do not listen to him he is a bitch.He ejactulated into my kids mouth,Yeah hes fucking gross.He also burned down are house, Killed 42 cops raped 10 black co workers and has eaten about 42 tshirts.so fuck him i i hate you bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE ! PLEASE !
@tubeviewerX20 I guess it's meant to differentiate somebody from the large class of non-voters who just don't vote because they're lazy and/or apathetic. I vote and plan on voting for RP, but I can still kinda sympathize with their dilemma. Like Lysander Spooner said, "A man is none-the-less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."
anyone who would change from democrat to republican to vote for ron paul was never a democrat to begin with, we don't need a right wing extremist we need a progressive
In a state with closed primary elections, you must be registered in a Party to vote in that Party's primary election to choose their nominee. That sucks, but it's worth doing for just long enough to use their system against them as a double-edged sword. If your state has open primaries, show up and cast your vote. Finally, take the time and effort to find out whether your state is open or closed and then take the time and effort to comply long enough to screw their system up.
Anyone listen to KFI Radio AM 640? Has anyone even heard Ron Paul's name on their political newscasts? I think i heard it once in the 6 months I've been listening.. Something is seriously wrong here!
This guys is either very obtuse or very naive. The 'blacklisting' of Ron Paul comes straight from the top of these media conglomerates. If you scrutinize the boards of these behemoths, you'll discover that it is fraught with former CIA and high ranking military personnel. Ron Paul scares the hell out of them!
They ignore him because he is an anti-illuminati revolutionary whom they cannot afford to give any credence. Plain and simple. And if he wins he will fucking destroy all this bullshit and reign in an era of peace and prosperity. so vote Ron Paul.
WIll Ron Paul participate in the GOP debate tonight ??? All the articles I read , keep lauding Perry and saying he and Romney are the top tier . Gee, I wonder why a lot of people STILL have not heard of Ron Paul,the invisible man . The lamestream media is so bought and paid for .
Change your registration to Republican just for your state's primary election. Then go home, take a shower, and change it back. Nobody has to be a Republican for any longer than it takes to push Ron Paul through the Primary to win him the GOP nomination. After that we can handle it through the general... who here can't wait to see Ron Paul initiate some debate annihilation on Mr. Ubama?
I dont understand why it is you have to REGISTER as a particular party just to be able to vote for them... technically everyone should be independent... issue by issue ya know??
@Assaultpredator I agree with you 100 percent about that. In many states, Arizona being one, independents or parties without a candidate on the ballot are allowed to vote in Party primaries. In this state, though, you must vote one ticket or the other. You go to the polling place on the Primary Election day, state that you are a registered independent or a party with no candidate, and request a ballot for the Party whose primary you wish to participate in. Most states have closed primaries.
Ron Paul has a delivery problem not a message problem. He has the right stuff, but is awkward delivering a simple, cogent message that he hoi polloi can grasp and therefore, can never be President.
Instead, we are evolving into a state where eventually we will see classical liberals and progressive liberals. This should provide some optimism about the future as long as both can work together and help each other. We are far from that yet. Pauls influence on the GOP especially the younger base is undisputeable despite what the media does, because of advances in technology. He is older and holds positions that are not mainstream on some issues, electable or not. Its bigger than him. He knows.
Skandalos, its not just about Paul. It is about his influence and what he represents. To me, other than possibly Johnson, he represents true liberty and free market capitalism. The GOP is headed in a facist direction built on tired rhetoric and policies that do not work. This is the counter balance. Conservatism, means to preserve the status quo. I do not count myself as a Republican that wants to smoke pot etc.
it is much simpler: Ron Paul isnt simple enough for the media, he isnt a stereotype guy. Obama is the exact opposite with his extremely media-friendly "message" that consists of just the two words hope and change.
There is no conspiracy. Ron Paul is just the arch enemy of stupidity and the media.
So my solution would be a state solution. Let people in Vermont pursue that end, and then let others learn from the successes and failures and follow suit. It need not be an expensive inefficient enterprise. 50 laboratories of innovation. We do not have to assume that there is one formula that will work like a blanket. Give people more autonomy and allow for innovation.
Now the omission of that tidbit in Free to Choose is unsurprising. He said that one can choose democracy, free immigration, or a welfare state but only two. Which is something I agree with given analysis of social democracies, particularly the political climate in Sweden and the UK. Its a reality, we do not want to deal with here because the GOP wants the cheap labor and the Dems want the votes.
truevoice, I think our fear of single payer healthcare is unfounded. I would think allocating resources would be the greatest problem. I see it with the same critical eye as with most social planning. But Mr. Friedman inspired me to read up on Hong Kong. They have had a pretty successful single payer model that does not eclipse 5% of GDP spending. Private insurance still competes and they have real prices on procedures that consumers know.
Very few people actually want to live in anarchy. Even Hayek, who I admire advocated that social welfare is neccesary. But if not for corporate influence, Obama might have got his single payer healthcare system. Which would please me, because it would actually lower the cost of services and give some control back to the consumers as long as private health care still got to compete.
@mitziedoll Single payer health care means massive resources are sucked into the program, which means less resources for private health care. Google "Health Care Reader Mises".
Paul, should scare no one. Even his crazy ideas are well intentioned enough that in reality, like with gold standard issue, that it will simply turn more attention to fed policy. In fact, his influence on the GOP will help progressives. If we do spend less money on defense, on the drug war, on the inefficient bureaucracies and corporate welfare than you will have more resources to actually do some good in this country.
TBlake, Paul supporters actually created the Tea Party. This brand actually understood that the movement in Revolutionary history was anti corporatism. In fact, Hartmann did a great show exposing the hypocritical nature of what it is now. But I disagreed on the element that originally it was a grassroots movement. If you ask a tea bagger about the original tea party they will have no clue what it was. That is sad.
TBlake, from what I have read Krugman was actually advocating for the conditions that led to the housing bubble and denied the implications until 2007.
Finally, for the record. It is true that most people that are wired like me oppose the expansion of the welfare state. That does not neccesarily mean that we cannot be useful to you, providing insight on innovation and how to provide the most bang for the taxpayer buck. Or that you cannot be useful to us, deciding where regulations are neccesary, and that the common good is a consideration along with personal liberty.
@mitziedoll Sure, I agree with that. That's an important societal debate--how much market freedom should be allowed vs. the strength of the safety net and efficiency supervenes over both.
This is the debate we should be having, but instead we're off in teabagger fantasy land arguing about the gold standard and trying to stimulate the mythical confidence fairies to come bless our economy. Paul is even more extreme and insane than most of the baggers, and that should scare people.
In addition, I already told you about what I thought about the gold standard and why Pauls position is irrelevant. But, Bernake himself wrote a book blaming the actions of the fed for the great depression. In 02 at a University of Chicago conference honoring Milton Friedman he said, "Your right, we did it. Thanks to you, we will not do it again." So to hold the fed accountable, not so crazy of an idea. That is the worst that could come of Pauls crazy position.
@mitziedoll This is another great example. You are 100% correct that the Fed needs to be held accountable. They are a significant reason that this current downturn has persisted and they played a central role in exacerbating the Depression (which is why the Glass Steagall and other regulations were created).
But the problem with the Fed isn't that they're lying about how much gold is in the basement or that they're doing some super-secret voodoo, it's that they're making poor policy.
Without sufficient money down. Yes, that came from a Republican. At the time that was a crazy position and he got hell for it. I believe there are appropriate and inappropriate regulations. Regulations on environmental emissions are good. Giving a corporate subsidy to a "green" window company because of crony connections is wrong. The government should not pick winners and losers.
TBlake, was the housing bubble obvious? I know people were calling Paul "crazy" for seeing it in 02. I know a lot of mainstream economists, Krugman and the like calling it "crazy" in 06. To say that the government and Fannie and Freddie did not play a role with regulation would be a good observation. Saying that deregulation also played a role would be fair as well. Gov Perry, who I might say holds crazy positions for my sensibilities actually set guidelines that prohibited people from borrowing
@mitziedoll Krugman wrote about the bubble multiple times before it burst. Fannie and Freddie weren't the cause of the inflation, the subprime loans given out did not meet their lending standards.
But borrowing standards are just one aspect of the bubble. The exponential explosion of mortgage-backed securities had nothing to do with lending standards, it had to do with insane asset leveraging and collusion between ratings agencies and the banks creating the exotic financial instruments.
TBlake, I did not insult your political opinion, or who you would vote for. You mentioned wikipedia, I simply suggested that books and and research papers are more indicative of the big picture. I am not vapid, and acknowledge truth from Zinn, Marx, Hayek, Mises, even Rand occasionally. It is not that Paul has "different" ideas, to glaze over that is to miss The Big Picture. Which I often do not. I like Hartman, even if I do not always agree with him.
@mitziedoll Sure, once again, I was and am refering to the basic, basic problems with the gold standard. We can get to the big picture in a bit, but before contextualizing all that information it's worth understanding what a disaster the gold standard was. There were times in history when a served a purpose--kept royals from using their complete authority to destroy nation's economies, for example--but it was primarily responsible for making the Depression as bad as it was.
In fact you would be surprised how the classical strain of liberalism works with the progressive strain. Instead of combating each other constantly, they work in tandem. The public sector and private sectors are more efficient. So much so that people WILL vote for higher taxes because the programs they have are efficient and benefit everyone.
@mitziedoll That was pretty vague, but I have to conceptual objections to what you wrote there. As a society we can decide how to best deploy the incentives capitalism provides while ameliorating the negatives. This involves the combination of regulations and a social safety net.
What we see from Paul and the Republicans, however, is the desire to completely dismantle the social safety net while deregulating and eliminating taxes on the wealthy. This unleashes the worst of capitalism.
And TBlake, deregulation is not the sole reason that we got into this mess. In fact government/corporate collusion is. People like Paul saw the housing bubble years before you did. Next you assume I am a Paul supporter, I am simply a classical liberal. The free market, not that facist sort. What we have to bring to the table is equally important to what progressive liberals do. Other countries, especially European countries respect this influence.
@mitziedoll Yes, government and corporate collusion to deregulate and eliminate oversight. See the elimination of Glass-Steagall.
The housing bubble was fairly obvious. Many, many people were pointing out the unsustainability of the explosion. This was not a mystery to economists. It was a shock to investors trying to make as much money as they could.
The post-depression regulations were what ended the boom-bust cycle. We eliminated those, now it's back. Paul would make it worse.
TBlake, first of all, what sources do you have that would suggest that other countries do not take steps to strengthen their currencies? I was not centering om the gold standard, merely making a point Pauls opinion on it is irrelevant in the broad sense. All he could do is hold the fed accountable.
Are losing that, and the favorite tool of the status quo right and left is to brand anything that does not mesh as crazy. Obama had a plan that appealed to many, but how are his actions different than any moderate Republican? Because the "line" has gotten extremely close.
@mitziedoll This is a perfect example of why Paul supporters are so misguided: you understand that the people in charge are fucking up, so you think anything that contradicts what they say must be good. This is a maliciously false notion. Ron Paul is an extreme example of the anti-regulation free market fantasy world that got us into this mess. It's like being on the Titanic and thinking the way to stop it from sinking is to run into bigger icebergs.
Point being that if it were not for the "crazy" people, which is where you place Ron Paul, and apparently Ralph Nader if you think a fed audit is the desire of conspiracy theorists then people would not be interested in these topics and asking questions. To learn more about how the political realm works is healthy and neccesary if we want to keep our freedoms and have a say in the process. It is not about who you agree with, its about a government that is truly representative of the people. We
@TBlake34 Oh give me a brake saying the Fed is transparency and there is nothing wrong with making sure US gold reserves are there. Who are you working for because you sound like your from the Obama administration?
@freedom44ify 1) It really doesn't matter all the much if the gold is there. It's a tiny sum of money compared to the US economy.
2) We just did this a few years ago. Unless you think Brad Pitt and George Clooney stole all the gold, I'm not sure we have to worry about many tons of metal magically disapearing.
3) The Fed is very, very transparent. What do you want to know that you can't find out? This is just conspiracy bullshit.
@TBlake34 The gold belongs to the American people and it is very important. If the US Federal reserve was soooo transparent, then why is it that they can't keep track of 9 trillion of American's tax payers money, where there smoke there's fire. You don't sound like you give a crap about the American people. As for the conspiracy label that is something people use when they try to hide something and steer people away from the truth.
Theory from practice. Then you have to seperate stupid from crazy. Everyone on the political stage holds stupid views on one issue or another. But the label "crazy" need not apply to all who deviate from the party line.
Well first of TBlake, if your getting all of your information from wikipedia, then you are not thoroughly researching anything. In a credible academic institution, citing wikipedia is a clear way to get a poor grade. I am not advocating retuning to a gold standard based on credible research. But my credible research also has found that strengthening the currency, through other hard assets or by holding central banks accountable has a real place in the debate. You have to be able to seperate
@mitziedoll No, I'm not getting "all" my information from wikipedia, I'm suggesting that if you even managed to get basic information from wikipedia you wouldn't sound like such a vapid dolt.
Gold Standard=Primitive economics.
Like all mediums of exchange, gold only has as much value as someone else is willing to give you for it. It doesn't have magical value.
Finally, the Fed. Libertarians like Paul are not alone in wanting more transparency or at least a fed audit. The fact that the fed is bailing out banks and other countries without this transparency is not a conspiracy theory. He could not end the fed if he wanted to do so. I agree with Friedman and Greenspan that the inactivity of the fed is what catapulted us deep into the Great Depression.
@mitziedoll Paul wants to roam around looking for gold to make sure it's all there. This is crazy.
The Fed is completely transparent, the only function it provides that is not annually revealed is its status as "lender of last resort." When a bank is failing the fed will sometimes issue them a confidential loan when nothing else will work. This is kept secret to avoid bank runs and general panic. It's very successful. There are no boogie men.
In addition what makes you think Paul is an anarchist? If your going to make a point about private property laws not being enforced in the absence of government than cite a relevant example. Plus state whether your actually "for" private property. It is ok to be a communist. I do not judge. Even our European social democracies like Sweden enforce strong property rights.
@mitziedoll That's just gibberish. Paul argues that government should stay out of private property interests. This is incoherent and stupid on a number of practical levels, but it's hilariously misguided given any basic understanding of the history of property law. The only reason private property exists is because governments enforce those rights.
It's akin to the teabagger refrain: "Keep you government hands out of my Medicare."
Yes, all functioning GOVERNMENTS enforce property laws.
In addition, you have to love Hartmann and RT. This guy is telling it like it is, even if he is a traditional lefty. I don't think many Americans understand the courage he is exhibiting. Hartmann loves this country and that's good enough for me. Let's face it...the truth may set you free but in the process...
TBlake, we are not in the Civil War era any more nor is it 1964. What relevance does it have to dwell on the fact that Paul hypothetically would have copied other countries that got rid of slaves without going to war? None! I think TBlake that you are a secret conservative because you tend to think like one, regergitate points without research and focus on the issues that are of no relevance in the modern day because we have evolved.
@mitziedoll First, you asked for examples of craziness, I gave them. Lot's of people believe some guy rose from the dead and walked on water 2000 years ago. Just because it's an old idea doesn't mean it's any less stupid and insane.
"Other countries" had very different realities than we did. Half our country was willing to send hundreds of thousands of young men to their deaths to protect their ability to own other human beings. They spent a century after than abusing the freed slaves.
What happened to Reason magazine?...seriously...I subscribed in '92 the guy is not a true libertarian. Classic...he supports a man who no one even knows...then states that Ron Paul cannot win...I smell a rat.
TBlake, first of all defending private property is not some randian fantasy land (seriousy, if your going to cite Rand site actual faults like hostility toward charity). Secondly, Paul is for a currency backed by hard assets. I would ask swiss why that idea is do cuckoo. Its not my position but hardly "crazy".
@mitziedoll If you have to ask why the gold standard is a stupid idea there is literally no way we can have a conversation. It's like arguing the Earth is flat. Just read the wikipedia page on the gold standard. It's basic, basic economic theory. Advocating the gold standard in 2011 is crazy.
And Rand discuses property rights quite often. She brings it up the "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: the Unknow Ideal" to name two. Her theories are fantasy nonsense, Paul loves them.
moniker "crazy" because the observer sees the world with a different set of glasses. In fact writing off something different as being crazy is the essence of conservatism. We are moving toward a society of tolerance and acceptance and what crazy people like Paul are doing to the right is important. He may not be electable but his influence is undisputeable. In a good way.
@mitziedoll It's crazy to think segregation in the South would magically have solved itself with free-market forces (100 years of free market action wasn't enough time?). It's crazy to think the South would have given up slavery without war. It's crazy to "doubt evolution." His economic theories are barbaric-gold standard?
By the way, the easiest way to tell whether someone is actually an intellectual or just full of shit is to listen to them speak on science. He's a dumb eighth grader.
TBlake, why do you feel Ron is crazy? Other than his view on abortion, I do not read a single thing that is not coherent classical liberal philosophy. Which when you think about it, is much more intellectually honest than conservatism. As a person, he is probably the least crazy person on the GOP political stage. He is eccentric and not the most articulate person but that alone does not make a person crazy. There are some well meaning progressives with "crazy" ideas but they do not deserve the
@mitziedoll Well look, being the least crazy person on the GOP stage is like being the tallest Oompa Loompa: that's hardly great praise.
Most people know that Ron Paul opposes the war and is for the legalization of pot. Start reading his actual theories and the crazy starts bubbling up. Arguing for the gold standard is basically economic flat-Earthism. His conspiracy theories about the Fed are the sort of thing 9-11 truther tards will vomit up.
@TBlake34 nice try...clearly you are not nuts but are tied in, one way or another, with the filth that have sold this once free country up the river. We will win, it's just a matter of time. Those of us who have the ability and drive to live in freedom will once again soon. And when that day comes...I wouldn't want to be you.
@mitziedoll At least Ron Paul speaks from the heart and doesn't need a teleprompter. The American people voted Obama in and it was all about "yes we can", words that meant any thing and they voted on his looks. Look what they got. Here is a man who doesn't hide anything and tells the Americans how he can save their country and human rights and they are crapping all over him. The media is so disrespectful and prejudice when it comes to Ron Paul. Just because he is not bought and paid for.
Look, Ron Paul is insane. He has some praiseworthy opinions, but that's more random chance. He indulges in a dangerous, vapid form of self-aggrandizing mythology.
And yet that makes him the most palatable of the Republican candidates. Obama isn't doing a great job, but holy shit, look at these bottom-scraping psychos vomited up by the Republicans. This has to be the most pathetic group of candidates since the Dems in '88 or maybe some of the knuckleheads that opposed FDR.
@freedom44ify Yes, but I'm using it because Ron Paul is actually insane. The fact that others use the word inappropriately in other circumstances does not reduce the accuracy of its deployment here.
Do you understand that Ron Paul will do absolutely nothing to change any of that? All he will manage to do (well, in all honesty he won't do anything because he's irrelevant) is destroy the few remaining regulations that keep the groups you've identified as the problem at bay.
@leafwatch Oh, you're right. Because I use strong words to denounce his idiotic political ideas, that must mean he is relevant. Why, if I post just two more times, that means he's going to win the New Hampshire primary.
What is your point? Dumb views are dumb views regardless of the speaker's political chances. I don't think David Duke will be elected and his racism is marginalized in our society. Confronting bigots is still worthwhile just like pointing out Paul's insanity is worth doing.
@freedom44ify No, his ideas come from a Randian masturbation-fantasy sloppily imposed on the Constitution. The Constitution isn't very long, I would recommend reading it. Then, when Paul starts spewing incoherent gibberish about the document, you will be armed with the knowledge to realize how off base he is.
Like most juvenile thinkers, Paul also fails to understand that it really isn't the best idea to be infinitely bound by the writings of 18th century slave-owners. Amendment=good.
@freedom44ify This is the fundamental problem with our country right now: a lot of people recognize that things aren't going well, the recognize the president isn't doing a great job, but they only understand at the most primitive level. Thus, their prescriptions for the solution are comically wrong. Yes, the Patriot Act is awful, yes Congress is nuts(though their obstruction is actually Constitutional), but Ron Paul is not the solution. He's just a crazy old man that potheads like.
Basic Lesson about the "hard right" GOP: They're pure free market rhetoric. Ron Paul is consistent in deeds and action. That's why he's hated by the establishment, both Left and Right.
@truevoice08 Ron Paul is not consistent. He SAYS he's consistent and spews political tripe better suited for teenage angst, so people convince themselves he has a coherent philosophy, but his notions of "individual liberty" start fading away pretty quickly when someone begins a discussion of women's issues.
And that's before dealing with the fundamental idiotic contradictions of basic glibertarianism.
@truevoice08 Property rights is perhaps the clearest. It describes both the fantasy contained in his idiotic Randism as well as his awesome historical ignorance.
The only reason we have private property is because the government enforces those laws. It used to be the case that when people wanted "private property" they had to hire their own mini-military to enforce that control. Absent government there really isn't anything resembling private property, unless you can hire a band of thugs.
@TBlake34 So why is it that when the government abolishes private property like in Soviet Russia people are trading in black markets and enforcing underground property relations? Doesn't that prove private property is natural? Or are you going to deny that Soviet Russia was truly socialist like most lefties?
@truevoice08 It may prove that the DESIRE for private property is natural, but people simply do not have private property without a strong government to assert those rights. Of course some government COULD destroy property rights. A government COULD outlaw the right to vote. That doesn't mean democracy is "natural," whatever you mean by that.
The precusor to property laws was the medieval tradition of seisin. Read how that operated. Private property is a recent development in human history.
@TBlake34 "Private property is a recent development in human history." China has a 3000 year history and they had commerce for most of that time. And when I say natural I'm not implying any 'desire' of individuals. I'm saying that natural -as in absence of external coercion - people cooperate implicitly through market transactions. The Soviets 'desired' communism, but it didn't work since it was unnatural. It wasn't really in their best interests.
@truevoice08 Commerce can occur without private property. There was commerce in Medieval Europe, but there was no coherent system of private property ownership. The system we use now was developed during the Enlightenment, John Locke being perhaps the most important driving force. Jefferson used Locke's "Life, liberty, and property," as the basis for the Declaration, with an obvious modification.
The government is what enforces private property rights, the right wing position is incoherent.
@TBlake34 "The government is what enforces private property rights, the right wing position is incoherent." Yet the government violates private property rights through taxation and eminent domain and wars of aggression. Commerce means you're engaging in trade with private property. You cannot engage in trade if you don't own anything. There's never a pure system but insofar as private property is respected is there civilization. Private property doesn't mean grabbing stuff and not sharing
@truevoice08 Oy. This is a perfect illustration of the utter confusion and incoherence of libertarian thinking. There's so much wrong in your post, and the errors are so fundamental and so simple, that it's literally impossible to take you seriously.
I've explained the government role in property to you, you're just incapable of understanding the basic concept, so I will just point out that one need not own property to, say, trade commodities on Wall Street. you're spouting nonsense.
@TBlake34 "so I will just point out that one need not own property to, say, trade commodities on Wall Street." Yes you do need to own property if you're going to trade anything. As for your concern for being simple, I will say this. If you're against private property, you're in favor of THEFT. It's that simple. Nothing Orwellian about that. It's just that libertarians take the "no stealing" principle to its logical conclusions, i.e. the abolition of the State.
@truevoice08 Good lord, amazing. You're basically equivocating over the meaning of the word "property." Investing in the future performance of a company is distinct from real property.
I'm not "against private property." I'm against retard libertarians incapable of understanding the fact that private property is created by government. The abolition of the state is the abolition of private property. Get rid of all those policemen making sure no one takes your shit and observe the "theft" rates.
@TBlake34 "Investing in the future performance of a company is distinct from real property." This does not rebut my point since in order to invest you need real property. Calling me retarded also does not eliminate the fact that you don't have a real argument. If you think we'd all be sharing our toothbrushes were the government to be abolished, then you're retarded. Democratic government is a means of plunder. The poor do it through welfare programs while the rich do it through money inflation
@truevoice08 Look, this is just pointless. Look up "real property" on wikipedia. You're so wrong on such an elementary level that we can't even have a conversation. It's like discussing science with someone who thinks all the dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.
The rest of your statement is just more paranoid, idiotic nonsense. You're just upchucking silly bullshit from Ayn Rand novels. Narcissism absent thinking. You've utterly failed to even grasp the basics of the history of property rights.
@truevoice08 Your obstinant, immature glibertarianism, unsurprisingly, exhausted itself. The only possible way to maintain a libertarian stance like Ron Paul is to be willfully ignorant of basic fact or just really fucking stupid. The difference is meaningless on a practical level.
Take securities trading. Have you ever wondered why such a system only exists in nations with strong central governments? And before you're stupid response, study necessary vs. sufficient conditions.
@TBlake34 LOl you're now drooling about topics that have little to do with the point of contention ( whether the state enforces private property). The only way you can maintain this discussion is to cover your ass and pretend to be educated. I'll just indulge your intellectual capitulation. I'm guessing the answer to your question is regulation right? Cause all of us would die without wise overlords watching over the financial markets?
@truevoice08 More incoherent nonsense. You should probably stop using words you don't really understand. "Indulge your intellectual capitulation" is gibberish.
Real property rights exist because governments enforce those rights. Take away the government and real property is merely defined by your physical ability to defend it. This is historically true, this is true now in a place like Somalia.
Likewise, financial markets only work with strong enforecement mechanisms--ie strong governments
@TBlake34 "You should probably stop using words you don't really understand. " Or words YOU don't understand? "Real property rights exist because governments enforce those rights." Then how do you explain taxation. An expropriating property rights protector (government) is a contradiction in terms. "Take away the government and real property is merely defined by your physical ability to defend it." Read John Locke or Murray Rothbard on homesteading.
@truevoice08 It's precisely because I know what "capitulate" means that I know you misused it.
The homestead principle merely says that a person gains ownership by exerting labor on a piece of neutral land. That creates a right to the land, but how is that program enforced? Do people just say, "Oh, Bob put a tent there, I guess that's his land." Or do governments enforce those property rights? (Since you're stupid, I'll give you a hint, it's the second one)
@TBlake34 "That creates a right to the land, but how is that program enforced? Do people just say, "Oh, Bob put a tent there, I guess that's his land." Or do governments enforce those property rights? " Oh wow. You actually got my point. Government enforcement is just a legal formality. Property rights come from homesteading, not government.
@WhiteStar11111 Reminder : Many former Obama supporters are now crossing party lines to go with Ron Paul. In about 20 closed/semi closed primary states, U wont be able to vote for Ron Paul if U R a registered Dem.So change that affiliation to REPUB today ! Don;t let them cheat U out of a vote and dont let them cheat Ron Paul out of the nomination ! That will be the ONLY way he wont win - if people don't realize they have to reg. REPUB in many states to make their vote count
Why would Mike Riggs from reason magazine say that he doesn't think that Ron Paul can't win the republican nomination? Is reason not really a libertarian think tank? Are they pushing the MSM ati-Paul narrative that influences unaware voters on which way to vote? Every person I try to convince into looking at Ron Paul's ideas starts by saying, 'Oh, I heard he can't win.'
It's dishonest to say that saying he can't win isn't affecting his chances of winning.
@bermein Reason has long been opposed to the rigorously principled libertarianism of Ron Paul. They are Republican first with a superficial smattering of nods to libertarian ideas. But like most political groups, they are not consistent. They are fence sitters.
@leafwatch I am a daily reader of Reason.com, and I can tell you that you are EXTREMELY uninformed. Republican first? Against rigorously principled libertarianism? Are you kidding me????? ITS A LIBERTARIAN MAGAZINE!! There may be left, right, anarchist or statist leaning readers, but they would never call themselves Republican. Many of them do in fact back Ron Paul, as do I.
You gotta make sure as a Libertarian, you must always be skeptical, always question everyone and everything. You gotta look into people like Katherine Mangu-Ward and how she used to be a Weekly Standard staffer, a known neoconservative magazine.
@liOVERLOADil I do read Reason Hit and Run with some regularity, and it has seemed more libertarian than the publication I'd been acquainted with for decades -- long enough to remember the vicious hit pieces on Dr. Paul. The tone has moderated, but there are individuals on the staff who are not reliable. Many use the term libertarian without reference to its consistent core principles.
@leafwatch I think that the impression you're getting is from a lack of established platform at Reason. Its makeup of Libertarians is fairly broad, (left, right, statis, anarchist). For the most part we follow the saying "Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative". Every once in a while there is the odd article that is clearly not meant for Reason, and it gets bashed to hell in the comments section -- which is where the libertarian ideas really flow.
@liOVERLOADil There are many libertarian forums where ideas flow freely, and get bashed spiritedly; I enjoy them thoroughly. But Reason seemed to be more about outreach; yet it sends very muddled messages when key editorial staff attack the one actual and consistently proven libertarian on the political scene. Opponents of libertarians are not only confused but given false ammunition. While I do take the long view of the fight for liberty, "un-friendly fire" too often reverses progress.
@leafwatch I honestly don't see that at all, and I can't remember the last time they mudraked Paul. Maybe last election, but I wasn't reading Reason at the time. In fact, there is an article on Reason right now that talks about the Iowa straw poll and puts Paul in a positive light (400 comments so far!).
@liOVERLOADil I hope you are correct, but the woman editor who recently joined the Establishment marginalization of Dr. Paul set back my hopes. I'll be watching; if Reason truly becomes reliable, you'll gain a supporter.
@leafwatch As far as Reasons credibility goes, I follow the comments first and the articles second. Reason TVs Nick Gillespie is always fantastic, but some of these new women don't seem to have a clue. Maybe they're trying to appeal to the younger crowd? As far as the guy on this video, I think he's trying to push Johnson because Paul is beginning to be too main stream for Libertarians. Libertarians seem to be a crowd that often embraces the uncommon as hip...
@bermein I hear that about candidates, but as a voter I think "Who the fuck cares?". Are we voting for who we, individually, want as the president, or who we think will win? The latter makes no sense at all...
It's too bad the Rockwell camp and Koch camp don't do more to cooperate based on their many agreements rather than focus on the few disagreements that they have chosen to be at war about since Koch forced Rothbard out of Cato.
There is nothing logical about the Koch camp (Reason, Cato, etc) refusing to advocate Ron Paul as the most appropriate and realistic choice for advocates of individual liberty.
This is a sad war that only benefits the big government.
Its funny how Thom distances himself from the cop media as if he wasnt a whore himself. Fake liberals like Thom used to claim their were antiwar during the Bush yrs but wont come out against Obama. Fake two faced liberals like Thom ignored Paul until they couldnt anymore. And you will now see Dems play the fearmongering card against Paul. Thom is a traitor to his country and a sellout.
Reason Magazine is awful, but the guy made some valid points.
As annoyed as I am by Ron Paul's right wing ideas, such as his absurd notions about taxation and social safety nets, I do admire him and support him. I have since I was 16 years old.
Hi Thom, First of all Thank YOU so much for excellent journalism of YOURS in shows and interviews. As far as Ron Paul is concerned: do we really wonder about the media, lobbyism, the Military Industrial Complex, f.e.? I highly value Ron Paul, for what he stands for, and that for a long period of time. Interesting enough a German boulevard was quoting from what Mrs. Bachmann had to say in recent public appearances. Sarah Palin revisited? Oh No, not again. Lisa
Hey Riggs - where have YOU been, all our political lives? That was some cool analysis of the Ron Paul media blackout 'principled non-voter?' Damn. How many writers/editors have admitted that, in public?
'They take their cues.... from GOP kingmakers'. Right on the money.
I admit to a bias AGAINST Reason magazine, but for what it's worth - you're too good for them, Riggs.
Libertarian is a Principled Non voter that would vote for Gary Johnson......If he were to actually break his principles......Future isn't looking too bright for gary Johnson...."A lot of Libertarians like him.....But none of them will be voting.....Gary says "Crap!"
@Stevie68000 Yes..but as a Jew, I call them Zionists. That way, I can lump in more bastards like, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Tony Blair, etc without anyone other than Zionists calling me an anti-semite. Zionist Bankster scum own us all and everything we think is ours. They are literally the enemies of humanity...many Zionists are not Jewish but hey hide behind innocent people who take the bullets of blame, never hitting the source of the evil. By keeping us divided, they will defeat us all!
@TheREALDanontheMoon It amazes me when I see Jews who don't support Ron Paul. I mean don't all Jews support sound money? Assuming the stereotype is accurate of course.
To the People: The use of Ad Homenim attacks: Ad Ignorantiam attacks Strawman arguments other logical fallacies does not prove your argument right or your opponent wrong. The only way to show information is in a manner excluding the simple 6th grade argument of your stupid so what you say must be wrong cause, your stupid. I am a Ron Paul supporter and I find it truly irritating to see those people on the other side of this debate using those tactics, let alone the people I am allied with.
MatthewBMany 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
U.S. congress is trying to pass legislation that threatens free speech and innovation on the Internet, under the banner of anti-piracy efforts. On January 24th, the U.S. Senate will vote on the PROTECT IP Act to censor the Internet, despite opposition from the vast majority of Americans
CuuJo7777 1 month ago
"I'm a principled non-voter." No, you're a principled douche bag. You shells at Reason will find any reason not to support Paul
wbh1850 2 months ago
"I am a principled nonvoter"
What a twat.
cow777 4 months ago 3
Hello? Ron Paul wants to dismantle the federal reserve. I.e. destroy the financial elite's control of America. He wants to stop the bankers who run the country, government, and control the media, and who make money by default by rigging the financial markets.
Even if he succeeded in doing this without getting assassinated like JFK, the bankers are truly global anyway.
Way to go, ignoring the elephant in the room....
nayphee 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*** Black THIS Out Moneybomb – October 19th ***
We're going to raise $6,000,000 and see if the media can black THAT out!
Pledge at BlackTHISOut[dot]com
4500+ pledges already!
Please spread the word!
eaglesfan48 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
End of quarter fundraiser for Ron Paul happening now; please consider donating.. it's now or never to get this man in office! - ronpaul2012(dot)com
Bring the troops home
End the war on drugs
Real economic growth
TMaw345 5 months ago
so the globalist are willing to kill more people and ruin other peoples life so they can buy 30 bedroom mansions? every single day many familes live in misery...i just wish they were put in the shoes of all those poor people so they see how it feels to be one of them
nlsnestevez 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This man raped me and my children he is a horrible man.Do not listen to him he is a bitch.He ejactulated into my kids mouth,Yeah hes fucking gross.He also burned down are house, Killed 42 cops raped 10 black co workers and has eaten about 42 tshirts.so fuck him i i hate you bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
donoteathere 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It’s not enough to say “Vote Ron Paul”
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this!
crogromphulous 5 months ago
What the hell is a "principled non-voter"? Probably makes him feel superior to the rest of us.
tubeviewerX20 5 months ago
@tubeviewerX20 I guess it's meant to differentiate somebody from the large class of non-voters who just don't vote because they're lazy and/or apathetic. I vote and plan on voting for RP, but I can still kinda sympathize with their dilemma. Like Lysander Spooner said, "A man is none-the-less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."
RationalDischarge 5 months ago
anyone who would change from democrat to republican to vote for ron paul was never a democrat to begin with, we don't need a right wing extremist we need a progressive
YOYOdaMOOSE 5 months ago
@YOYOdaMOOSE Bush = R, Obama = D
I dont see the difference in them..... they are the same no matter what letter is beside their name :)
ctnjason 5 months ago
In a state with closed primary elections, you must be registered in a Party to vote in that Party's primary election to choose their nominee. That sucks, but it's worth doing for just long enough to use their system against them as a double-edged sword. If your state has open primaries, show up and cast your vote. Finally, take the time and effort to find out whether your state is open or closed and then take the time and effort to comply long enough to screw their system up.
Route66Rambler 5 months ago
Anyone listen to KFI Radio AM 640? Has anyone even heard Ron Paul's name on their political newscasts? I think i heard it once in the 6 months I've been listening.. Something is seriously wrong here!
WhatJustHappendd 5 months ago
typical media: here's a top tier in the race, its perry, romney, and bachmann.
actual top tier: paul, ron or rand.
MrBigEnchilada 6 months ago
This guys is either very obtuse or very naive. The 'blacklisting' of Ron Paul comes straight from the top of these media conglomerates. If you scrutinize the boards of these behemoths, you'll discover that it is fraught with former CIA and high ranking military personnel. Ron Paul scares the hell out of them!
pollo1970 6 months ago
@pollo1970 Cite evidence or STFU.
traffik0001 6 months ago
@traffik0001 MSNBC is owned by GE--major weapons maker. Take a bite out of that---when you're not sucking on someone's cock.
pollo1970 6 months ago
They ignore him because he is an anti-illuminati revolutionary whom they cannot afford to give any credence. Plain and simple. And if he wins he will fucking destroy all this bullshit and reign in an era of peace and prosperity. so vote Ron Paul.
afracturedskull 6 months ago
@afracturedskull well said!
papitosabe 6 months ago
WIll Ron Paul participate in the GOP debate tonight ??? All the articles I read , keep lauding Perry and saying he and Romney are the top tier . Gee, I wonder why a lot of people STILL have not heard of Ron Paul,the invisible man . The lamestream media is so bought and paid for .
doogleandalix 6 months ago
Governor Rick Perry: Bring back my unlawfully stolen child over a criminal cover up petition on change.org. Please youtube Amy Charron
TheAmycharron 6 months ago
Change your registration to Republican just for your state's primary election. Then go home, take a shower, and change it back. Nobody has to be a Republican for any longer than it takes to push Ron Paul through the Primary to win him the GOP nomination. After that we can handle it through the general... who here can't wait to see Ron Paul initiate some debate annihilation on Mr. Ubama?
Route66Rambler 6 months ago 21
@Route66Rambler i dream of that moment. to see obama squirm beneath Ron Paul's truths!
radiohead247 6 months ago
@Route66Rambler
I dont understand why it is you have to REGISTER as a particular party just to be able to vote for them... technically everyone should be independent... issue by issue ya know??
Presumptions suck.
Assaultpredator 5 months ago
@Assaultpredator I agree with you 100 percent about that. In many states, Arizona being one, independents or parties without a candidate on the ballot are allowed to vote in Party primaries. In this state, though, you must vote one ticket or the other. You go to the polling place on the Primary Election day, state that you are a registered independent or a party with no candidate, and request a ballot for the Party whose primary you wish to participate in. Most states have closed primaries.
Route66Rambler 5 months ago
Its Sad when I get more real, factual American campaign news from Russia Today. Shows just how fucked up our country is.
citizensnips83 6 months ago
The United States doesn't really deserve Ron Paul :(
DrJackJeckyl 6 months ago
Ron Paul has a delivery problem not a message problem. He has the right stuff, but is awkward delivering a simple, cogent message that he hoi polloi can grasp and therefore, can never be President.
ellobowolfman 6 months ago
straw poll troll:
/watch?v=Gon9zn5vvH0&feature=channel_video_title
JohnnyJohnW 6 months ago
screw reason magazine.
xXJADEXx7 6 months ago
Comment removed
papalolita 6 months ago
Reason Magazine is about as libertarian as Fox and CNN.
Ladykofnyc2 6 months ago
Instead, we are evolving into a state where eventually we will see classical liberals and progressive liberals. This should provide some optimism about the future as long as both can work together and help each other. We are far from that yet. Pauls influence on the GOP especially the younger base is undisputeable despite what the media does, because of advances in technology. He is older and holds positions that are not mainstream on some issues, electable or not. Its bigger than him. He knows.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
Skandalos, its not just about Paul. It is about his influence and what he represents. To me, other than possibly Johnson, he represents true liberty and free market capitalism. The GOP is headed in a facist direction built on tired rhetoric and policies that do not work. This is the counter balance. Conservatism, means to preserve the status quo. I do not count myself as a Republican that wants to smoke pot etc.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
it is much simpler: Ron Paul isnt simple enough for the media, he isnt a stereotype guy. Obama is the exact opposite with his extremely media-friendly "message" that consists of just the two words hope and change.
There is no conspiracy. Ron Paul is just the arch enemy of stupidity and the media.
Skandalos 6 months ago
So my solution would be a state solution. Let people in Vermont pursue that end, and then let others learn from the successes and failures and follow suit. It need not be an expensive inefficient enterprise. 50 laboratories of innovation. We do not have to assume that there is one formula that will work like a blanket. Give people more autonomy and allow for innovation.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
Now the omission of that tidbit in Free to Choose is unsurprising. He said that one can choose democracy, free immigration, or a welfare state but only two. Which is something I agree with given analysis of social democracies, particularly the political climate in Sweden and the UK. Its a reality, we do not want to deal with here because the GOP wants the cheap labor and the Dems want the votes.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
truevoice, I think our fear of single payer healthcare is unfounded. I would think allocating resources would be the greatest problem. I see it with the same critical eye as with most social planning. But Mr. Friedman inspired me to read up on Hong Kong. They have had a pretty successful single payer model that does not eclipse 5% of GDP spending. Private insurance still competes and they have real prices on procedures that consumers know.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
Very few people actually want to live in anarchy. Even Hayek, who I admire advocated that social welfare is neccesary. But if not for corporate influence, Obama might have got his single payer healthcare system. Which would please me, because it would actually lower the cost of services and give some control back to the consumers as long as private health care still got to compete.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll Single payer health care means massive resources are sucked into the program, which means less resources for private health care. Google "Health Care Reader Mises".
truevoice08 6 months ago
Paul, should scare no one. Even his crazy ideas are well intentioned enough that in reality, like with gold standard issue, that it will simply turn more attention to fed policy. In fact, his influence on the GOP will help progressives. If we do spend less money on defense, on the drug war, on the inefficient bureaucracies and corporate welfare than you will have more resources to actually do some good in this country.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
TBlake, Paul supporters actually created the Tea Party. This brand actually understood that the movement in Revolutionary history was anti corporatism. In fact, Hartmann did a great show exposing the hypocritical nature of what it is now. But I disagreed on the element that originally it was a grassroots movement. If you ask a tea bagger about the original tea party they will have no clue what it was. That is sad.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
TBlake, from what I have read Krugman was actually advocating for the conditions that led to the housing bubble and denied the implications until 2007.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
Donate some money to Ron Paul today on his birthday fundraiser. He almost has $1,000,000 and needs the support of We the People to restore America.
optimusmaximus 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Donate to the Ron Paul 2012 Moneybomb!
stinkf1st 6 months ago
Finally, for the record. It is true that most people that are wired like me oppose the expansion of the welfare state. That does not neccesarily mean that we cannot be useful to you, providing insight on innovation and how to provide the most bang for the taxpayer buck. Or that you cannot be useful to us, deciding where regulations are neccesary, and that the common good is a consideration along with personal liberty.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll Sure, I agree with that. That's an important societal debate--how much market freedom should be allowed vs. the strength of the safety net and efficiency supervenes over both.
This is the debate we should be having, but instead we're off in teabagger fantasy land arguing about the gold standard and trying to stimulate the mythical confidence fairies to come bless our economy. Paul is even more extreme and insane than most of the baggers, and that should scare people.
TBlake34 6 months ago
In addition, I already told you about what I thought about the gold standard and why Pauls position is irrelevant. But, Bernake himself wrote a book blaming the actions of the fed for the great depression. In 02 at a University of Chicago conference honoring Milton Friedman he said, "Your right, we did it. Thanks to you, we will not do it again." So to hold the fed accountable, not so crazy of an idea. That is the worst that could come of Pauls crazy position.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll This is another great example. You are 100% correct that the Fed needs to be held accountable. They are a significant reason that this current downturn has persisted and they played a central role in exacerbating the Depression (which is why the Glass Steagall and other regulations were created).
But the problem with the Fed isn't that they're lying about how much gold is in the basement or that they're doing some super-secret voodoo, it's that they're making poor policy.
TBlake34 6 months ago
Without sufficient money down. Yes, that came from a Republican. At the time that was a crazy position and he got hell for it. I believe there are appropriate and inappropriate regulations. Regulations on environmental emissions are good. Giving a corporate subsidy to a "green" window company because of crony connections is wrong. The government should not pick winners and losers.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
TBlake, was the housing bubble obvious? I know people were calling Paul "crazy" for seeing it in 02. I know a lot of mainstream economists, Krugman and the like calling it "crazy" in 06. To say that the government and Fannie and Freddie did not play a role with regulation would be a good observation. Saying that deregulation also played a role would be fair as well. Gov Perry, who I might say holds crazy positions for my sensibilities actually set guidelines that prohibited people from borrowing
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll Krugman wrote about the bubble multiple times before it burst. Fannie and Freddie weren't the cause of the inflation, the subprime loans given out did not meet their lending standards.
But borrowing standards are just one aspect of the bubble. The exponential explosion of mortgage-backed securities had nothing to do with lending standards, it had to do with insane asset leveraging and collusion between ratings agencies and the banks creating the exotic financial instruments.
TBlake34 6 months ago
TBlake, I did not insult your political opinion, or who you would vote for. You mentioned wikipedia, I simply suggested that books and and research papers are more indicative of the big picture. I am not vapid, and acknowledge truth from Zinn, Marx, Hayek, Mises, even Rand occasionally. It is not that Paul has "different" ideas, to glaze over that is to miss The Big Picture. Which I often do not. I like Hartman, even if I do not always agree with him.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll Sure, once again, I was and am refering to the basic, basic problems with the gold standard. We can get to the big picture in a bit, but before contextualizing all that information it's worth understanding what a disaster the gold standard was. There were times in history when a served a purpose--kept royals from using their complete authority to destroy nation's economies, for example--but it was primarily responsible for making the Depression as bad as it was.
TBlake34 6 months ago
In fact you would be surprised how the classical strain of liberalism works with the progressive strain. Instead of combating each other constantly, they work in tandem. The public sector and private sectors are more efficient. So much so that people WILL vote for higher taxes because the programs they have are efficient and benefit everyone.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll That was pretty vague, but I have to conceptual objections to what you wrote there. As a society we can decide how to best deploy the incentives capitalism provides while ameliorating the negatives. This involves the combination of regulations and a social safety net.
What we see from Paul and the Republicans, however, is the desire to completely dismantle the social safety net while deregulating and eliminating taxes on the wealthy. This unleashes the worst of capitalism.
TBlake34 6 months ago
And TBlake, deregulation is not the sole reason that we got into this mess. In fact government/corporate collusion is. People like Paul saw the housing bubble years before you did. Next you assume I am a Paul supporter, I am simply a classical liberal. The free market, not that facist sort. What we have to bring to the table is equally important to what progressive liberals do. Other countries, especially European countries respect this influence.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll Yes, government and corporate collusion to deregulate and eliminate oversight. See the elimination of Glass-Steagall.
The housing bubble was fairly obvious. Many, many people were pointing out the unsustainability of the explosion. This was not a mystery to economists. It was a shock to investors trying to make as much money as they could.
The post-depression regulations were what ended the boom-bust cycle. We eliminated those, now it's back. Paul would make it worse.
TBlake34 6 months ago
TBlake, first of all, what sources do you have that would suggest that other countries do not take steps to strengthen their currencies? I was not centering om the gold standard, merely making a point Pauls opinion on it is irrelevant in the broad sense. All he could do is hold the fed accountable.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@TBlake it is idiots like you who Destroy America! Get Real Man and do some Real Research before talking BS.
DevHextor 6 months ago
Are losing that, and the favorite tool of the status quo right and left is to brand anything that does not mesh as crazy. Obama had a plan that appealed to many, but how are his actions different than any moderate Republican? Because the "line" has gotten extremely close.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll This is a perfect example of why Paul supporters are so misguided: you understand that the people in charge are fucking up, so you think anything that contradicts what they say must be good. This is a maliciously false notion. Ron Paul is an extreme example of the anti-regulation free market fantasy world that got us into this mess. It's like being on the Titanic and thinking the way to stop it from sinking is to run into bigger icebergs.
TBlake34 6 months ago
Point being that if it were not for the "crazy" people, which is where you place Ron Paul, and apparently Ralph Nader if you think a fed audit is the desire of conspiracy theorists then people would not be interested in these topics and asking questions. To learn more about how the political realm works is healthy and neccesary if we want to keep our freedoms and have a say in the process. It is not about who you agree with, its about a government that is truly representative of the people. We
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@TBlake34 Oh give me a brake saying the Fed is transparency and there is nothing wrong with making sure US gold reserves are there. Who are you working for because you sound like your from the Obama administration?
freedom44ify 6 months ago
@freedom44ify 1) It really doesn't matter all the much if the gold is there. It's a tiny sum of money compared to the US economy.
2) We just did this a few years ago. Unless you think Brad Pitt and George Clooney stole all the gold, I'm not sure we have to worry about many tons of metal magically disapearing.
3) The Fed is very, very transparent. What do you want to know that you can't find out? This is just conspiracy bullshit.
TBlake34 6 months ago
@TBlake34 The gold belongs to the American people and it is very important. If the US Federal reserve was soooo transparent, then why is it that they can't keep track of 9 trillion of American's tax payers money, where there smoke there's fire. You don't sound like you give a crap about the American people. As for the conspiracy label that is something people use when they try to hide something and steer people away from the truth.
freedom44ify 6 months ago
Theory from practice. Then you have to seperate stupid from crazy. Everyone on the political stage holds stupid views on one issue or another. But the label "crazy" need not apply to all who deviate from the party line.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll Not all, but certainly Ron Paul. Michelle Bachman is another person who deserves to be called crazy.
By contrast, Mitt Romney is just intentionally dumb (he knows the right answers but tries to appeal to the know-nothings called Republican voters).
TBlake34 6 months ago
Well first of TBlake, if your getting all of your information from wikipedia, then you are not thoroughly researching anything. In a credible academic institution, citing wikipedia is a clear way to get a poor grade. I am not advocating retuning to a gold standard based on credible research. But my credible research also has found that strengthening the currency, through other hard assets or by holding central banks accountable has a real place in the debate. You have to be able to seperate
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll No, I'm not getting "all" my information from wikipedia, I'm suggesting that if you even managed to get basic information from wikipedia you wouldn't sound like such a vapid dolt.
Gold Standard=Primitive economics.
Like all mediums of exchange, gold only has as much value as someone else is willing to give you for it. It doesn't have magical value.
TBlake34 6 months ago
Finally, the Fed. Libertarians like Paul are not alone in wanting more transparency or at least a fed audit. The fact that the fed is bailing out banks and other countries without this transparency is not a conspiracy theory. He could not end the fed if he wanted to do so. I agree with Friedman and Greenspan that the inactivity of the fed is what catapulted us deep into the Great Depression.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll Paul wants to roam around looking for gold to make sure it's all there. This is crazy.
The Fed is completely transparent, the only function it provides that is not annually revealed is its status as "lender of last resort." When a bank is failing the fed will sometimes issue them a confidential loan when nothing else will work. This is kept secret to avoid bank runs and general panic. It's very successful. There are no boogie men.
TBlake34 6 months ago
Comment removed
freedom44ify 6 months ago
In addition what makes you think Paul is an anarchist? If your going to make a point about private property laws not being enforced in the absence of government than cite a relevant example. Plus state whether your actually "for" private property. It is ok to be a communist. I do not judge. Even our European social democracies like Sweden enforce strong property rights.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll That's just gibberish. Paul argues that government should stay out of private property interests. This is incoherent and stupid on a number of practical levels, but it's hilariously misguided given any basic understanding of the history of property law. The only reason private property exists is because governments enforce those rights.
It's akin to the teabagger refrain: "Keep you government hands out of my Medicare."
Yes, all functioning GOVERNMENTS enforce property laws.
TBlake34 6 months ago
In addition, you have to love Hartmann and RT. This guy is telling it like it is, even if he is a traditional lefty. I don't think many Americans understand the courage he is exhibiting. Hartmann loves this country and that's good enough for me. Let's face it...the truth may set you free but in the process...
MegaBuckjohnson 6 months ago
TBlake, we are not in the Civil War era any more nor is it 1964. What relevance does it have to dwell on the fact that Paul hypothetically would have copied other countries that got rid of slaves without going to war? None! I think TBlake that you are a secret conservative because you tend to think like one, regergitate points without research and focus on the issues that are of no relevance in the modern day because we have evolved.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll First, you asked for examples of craziness, I gave them. Lot's of people believe some guy rose from the dead and walked on water 2000 years ago. Just because it's an old idea doesn't mean it's any less stupid and insane.
"Other countries" had very different realities than we did. Half our country was willing to send hundreds of thousands of young men to their deaths to protect their ability to own other human beings. They spent a century after than abusing the freed slaves.
TBlake34 6 months ago
What happened to Reason magazine?...seriously...I subscribed in '92 the guy is not a true libertarian. Classic...he supports a man who no one even knows...then states that Ron Paul cannot win...I smell a rat.
MegaBuckjohnson 6 months ago
TBlake, first of all defending private property is not some randian fantasy land (seriousy, if your going to cite Rand site actual faults like hostility toward charity). Secondly, Paul is for a currency backed by hard assets. I would ask swiss why that idea is do cuckoo. Its not my position but hardly "crazy".
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll If you have to ask why the gold standard is a stupid idea there is literally no way we can have a conversation. It's like arguing the Earth is flat. Just read the wikipedia page on the gold standard. It's basic, basic economic theory. Advocating the gold standard in 2011 is crazy.
And Rand discuses property rights quite often. She brings it up the "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: the Unknow Ideal" to name two. Her theories are fantasy nonsense, Paul loves them.
TBlake34 6 months ago
Comment removed
freedom44ify 6 months ago
Comment removed
freedom44ify 6 months ago
moniker "crazy" because the observer sees the world with a different set of glasses. In fact writing off something different as being crazy is the essence of conservatism. We are moving toward a society of tolerance and acceptance and what crazy people like Paul are doing to the right is important. He may not be electable but his influence is undisputeable. In a good way.
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll It's crazy to think segregation in the South would magically have solved itself with free-market forces (100 years of free market action wasn't enough time?). It's crazy to think the South would have given up slavery without war. It's crazy to "doubt evolution." His economic theories are barbaric-gold standard?
By the way, the easiest way to tell whether someone is actually an intellectual or just full of shit is to listen to them speak on science. He's a dumb eighth grader.
TBlake34 6 months ago
TBlake, why do you feel Ron is crazy? Other than his view on abortion, I do not read a single thing that is not coherent classical liberal philosophy. Which when you think about it, is much more intellectually honest than conservatism. As a person, he is probably the least crazy person on the GOP political stage. He is eccentric and not the most articulate person but that alone does not make a person crazy. There are some well meaning progressives with "crazy" ideas but they do not deserve the
mitziedoll 6 months ago
@mitziedoll Well look, being the least crazy person on the GOP stage is like being the tallest Oompa Loompa: that's hardly great praise.
Most people know that Ron Paul opposes the war and is for the legalization of pot. Start reading his actual theories and the crazy starts bubbling up. Arguing for the gold standard is basically economic flat-Earthism. His conspiracy theories about the Fed are the sort of thing 9-11 truther tards will vomit up.
He's nuts.
TBlake34 6 months ago
@TBlake34 nice try...clearly you are not nuts but are tied in, one way or another, with the filth that have sold this once free country up the river. We will win, it's just a matter of time. Those of us who have the ability and drive to live in freedom will once again soon. And when that day comes...I wouldn't want to be you.
MegaBuckjohnson 6 months ago
@mitziedoll At least Ron Paul speaks from the heart and doesn't need a teleprompter. The American people voted Obama in and it was all about "yes we can", words that meant any thing and they voted on his looks. Look what they got. Here is a man who doesn't hide anything and tells the Americans how he can save their country and human rights and they are crapping all over him. The media is so disrespectful and prejudice when it comes to Ron Paul. Just because he is not bought and paid for.
freedom44ify 6 months ago
"I am a principled nonvoter"
READ AS
"I am an entitled faggot"
I agree with the thrust of this video but I had to stop watching when I heard that horseshit.
chowfun18 6 months ago
Look, Ron Paul is insane. He has some praiseworthy opinions, but that's more random chance. He indulges in a dangerous, vapid form of self-aggrandizing mythology.
And yet that makes him the most palatable of the Republican candidates. Obama isn't doing a great job, but holy shit, look at these bottom-scraping psychos vomited up by the Republicans. This has to be the most pathetic group of candidates since the Dems in '88 or maybe some of the knuckleheads that opposed FDR.
TBlake34 6 months ago
Comment removed
freedom44ify 6 months ago
@freedom44ify Yes, but I'm using it because Ron Paul is actually insane. The fact that others use the word inappropriately in other circumstances does not reduce the accuracy of its deployment here.
Do you understand that Ron Paul will do absolutely nothing to change any of that? All he will manage to do (well, in all honesty he won't do anything because he's irrelevant) is destroy the few remaining regulations that keep the groups you've identified as the problem at bay.
TBlake34 6 months ago
@TBlake34 About someone supposedly "irrelevant", you certainly have worked yourself into hysteria in your posts.
leafwatch 6 months ago
@leafwatch Oh, you're right. Because I use strong words to denounce his idiotic political ideas, that must mean he is relevant. Why, if I post just two more times, that means he's going to win the New Hampshire primary.
What is your point? Dumb views are dumb views regardless of the speaker's political chances. I don't think David Duke will be elected and his racism is marginalized in our society. Confronting bigots is still worthwhile just like pointing out Paul's insanity is worth doing.
TBlake34 6 months ago
Comment removed
freedom44ify 6 months ago
@freedom44ify No, his ideas come from a Randian masturbation-fantasy sloppily imposed on the Constitution. The Constitution isn't very long, I would recommend reading it. Then, when Paul starts spewing incoherent gibberish about the document, you will be armed with the knowledge to realize how off base he is.
Like most juvenile thinkers, Paul also fails to understand that it really isn't the best idea to be infinitely bound by the writings of 18th century slave-owners. Amendment=good.
TBlake34 6 months ago
Comment removed
freedom44ify 6 months ago
@freedom44ify This is the fundamental problem with our country right now: a lot of people recognize that things aren't going well, the recognize the president isn't doing a great job, but they only understand at the most primitive level. Thus, their prescriptions for the solution are comically wrong. Yes, the Patriot Act is awful, yes Congress is nuts(though their obstruction is actually Constitutional), but Ron Paul is not the solution. He's just a crazy old man that potheads like.
TBlake34 6 months ago
Comment removed
freedom44ify 6 months ago
This is our last chance to do the right thing people stay on track keep a strong foothold and never give up. Ron Paul 2011
finderoftheway 6 months ago
Comment removed
freedom44ify 6 months ago 3
Comment removed
freedom44ify 6 months ago
Paul is reason mags biggest chance... to get someone that walks the same way...and this peckerwood touts Gary Johnson? WTF ?! lol
saltMagic 6 months ago
@saltMagic I am sure this kid has some pet government project that Paul would abolish...
jb4rp2012 6 months ago
Basic Lesson about the "hard right" GOP: They're pure free market rhetoric. Ron Paul is consistent in deeds and action. That's why he's hated by the establishment, both Left and Right.
truevoice08 6 months ago
@truevoice08 Ron Paul is not consistent. He SAYS he's consistent and spews political tripe better suited for teenage angst, so people convince themselves he has a coherent philosophy, but his notions of "individual liberty" start fading away pretty quickly when someone begins a discussion of women's issues.
And that's before dealing with the fundamental idiotic contradictions of basic glibertarianism.
TBlake34 6 months ago
@TBlake34 Care to provide any examples? I know your bluffing
truevoice08 6 months ago
@truevoice08 Property rights is perhaps the clearest. It describes both the fantasy contained in his idiotic Randism as well as his awesome historical ignorance.
The only reason we have private property is because the government enforces those laws. It used to be the case that when people wanted "private property" they had to hire their own mini-military to enforce that control. Absent government there really isn't anything resembling private property, unless you can hire a band of thugs.
TBlake34 6 months ago
@TBlake34 So why is it that when the government abolishes private property like in Soviet Russia people are trading in black markets and enforcing underground property relations? Doesn't that prove private property is natural? Or are you going to deny that Soviet Russia was truly socialist like most lefties?
truevoice08 6 months ago
@truevoice08 It may prove that the DESIRE for private property is natural, but people simply do not have private property without a strong government to assert those rights. Of course some government COULD destroy property rights. A government COULD outlaw the right to vote. That doesn't mean democracy is "natural," whatever you mean by that.
The precusor to property laws was the medieval tradition of seisin. Read how that operated. Private property is a recent development in human history.
TBlake34 6 months ago
@TBlake34 "Private property is a recent development in human history." China has a 3000 year history and they had commerce for most of that time. And when I say natural I'm not implying any 'desire' of individuals. I'm saying that natural -as in absence of external coercion - people cooperate implicitly through market transactions. The Soviets 'desired' communism, but it didn't work since it was unnatural. It wasn't really in their best interests.
truevoice08 6 months ago
@truevoice08 Commerce can occur without private property. There was commerce in Medieval Europe, but there was no coherent system of private property ownership. The system we use now was developed during the Enlightenment, John Locke being perhaps the most important driving force. Jefferson used Locke's "Life, liberty, and property," as the basis for the Declaration, with an obvious modification.
The government is what enforces private property rights, the right wing position is incoherent.
TBlake34 6 months ago
@TBlake34 "The government is what enforces private property rights, the right wing position is incoherent." Yet the government violates private property rights through taxation and eminent domain and wars of aggression. Commerce means you're engaging in trade with private property. You cannot engage in trade if you don't own anything. There's never a pure system but insofar as private property is respected is there civilization. Private property doesn't mean grabbing stuff and not sharing
truevoice08 6 months ago
@truevoice08 Oy. This is a perfect illustration of the utter confusion and incoherence of libertarian thinking. There's so much wrong in your post, and the errors are so fundamental and so simple, that it's literally impossible to take you seriously.
I've explained the government role in property to you, you're just incapable of understanding the basic concept, so I will just point out that one need not own property to, say, trade commodities on Wall Street. you're spouting nonsense.
TBlake34 6 months ago
@TBlake34 "so I will just point out that one need not own property to, say, trade commodities on Wall Street." Yes you do need to own property if you're going to trade anything. As for your concern for being simple, I will say this. If you're against private property, you're in favor of THEFT. It's that simple. Nothing Orwellian about that. It's just that libertarians take the "no stealing" principle to its logical conclusions, i.e. the abolition of the State.
truevoice08 5 months ago
@truevoice08 Good lord, amazing. You're basically equivocating over the meaning of the word "property." Investing in the future performance of a company is distinct from real property.
I'm not "against private property." I'm against retard libertarians incapable of understanding the fact that private property is created by government. The abolition of the state is the abolition of private property. Get rid of all those policemen making sure no one takes your shit and observe the "theft" rates.
TBlake34 5 months ago
@TBlake34 "Investing in the future performance of a company is distinct from real property." This does not rebut my point since in order to invest you need real property. Calling me retarded also does not eliminate the fact that you don't have a real argument. If you think we'd all be sharing our toothbrushes were the government to be abolished, then you're retarded. Democratic government is a means of plunder. The poor do it through welfare programs while the rich do it through money inflation
truevoice08 5 months ago
@truevoice08 Look, this is just pointless. Look up "real property" on wikipedia. You're so wrong on such an elementary level that we can't even have a conversation. It's like discussing science with someone who thinks all the dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.
The rest of your statement is just more paranoid, idiotic nonsense. You're just upchucking silly bullshit from Ayn Rand novels. Narcissism absent thinking. You've utterly failed to even grasp the basics of the history of property rights.
TBlake34 5 months ago
@TBlake34 LOL cause leftist history is soooo accurate
truevoice08 5 months ago
@truevoice08 Your obstinant, immature glibertarianism, unsurprisingly, exhausted itself. The only possible way to maintain a libertarian stance like Ron Paul is to be willfully ignorant of basic fact or just really fucking stupid. The difference is meaningless on a practical level.
Take securities trading. Have you ever wondered why such a system only exists in nations with strong central governments? And before you're stupid response, study necessary vs. sufficient conditions.
TBlake34 5 months ago
@TBlake34 LOl you're now drooling about topics that have little to do with the point of contention ( whether the state enforces private property). The only way you can maintain this discussion is to cover your ass and pretend to be educated. I'll just indulge your intellectual capitulation. I'm guessing the answer to your question is regulation right? Cause all of us would die without wise overlords watching over the financial markets?
truevoice08 5 months ago
@truevoice08 More incoherent nonsense. You should probably stop using words you don't really understand. "Indulge your intellectual capitulation" is gibberish.
Real property rights exist because governments enforce those rights. Take away the government and real property is merely defined by your physical ability to defend it. This is historically true, this is true now in a place like Somalia.
Likewise, financial markets only work with strong enforecement mechanisms--ie strong governments
TBlake34 5 months ago
@TBlake34 "You should probably stop using words you don't really understand. " Or words YOU don't understand? "Real property rights exist because governments enforce those rights." Then how do you explain taxation. An expropriating property rights protector (government) is a contradiction in terms. "Take away the government and real property is merely defined by your physical ability to defend it." Read John Locke or Murray Rothbard on homesteading.
truevoice08 5 months ago
@truevoice08 It's precisely because I know what "capitulate" means that I know you misused it.
The homestead principle merely says that a person gains ownership by exerting labor on a piece of neutral land. That creates a right to the land, but how is that program enforced? Do people just say, "Oh, Bob put a tent there, I guess that's his land." Or do governments enforce those property rights? (Since you're stupid, I'll give you a hint, it's the second one)
TBlake34 5 months ago
@TBlake34 "That creates a right to the land, but how is that program enforced? Do people just say, "Oh, Bob put a tent there, I guess that's his land." Or do governments enforce those property rights? " Oh wow. You actually got my point. Government enforcement is just a legal formality. Property rights come from homesteading, not government.
truevoice08 5 months ago
Ron Paul being rejected by the Republican establishment shows that Israel is their #1 issue.
WhiteStar11111 6 months ago 13
@WhiteStar11111 Reminder : Many former Obama supporters are now crossing party lines to go with Ron Paul. In about 20 closed/semi closed primary states, U wont be able to vote for Ron Paul if U R a registered Dem.So change that affiliation to REPUB today ! Don;t let them cheat U out of a vote and dont let them cheat Ron Paul out of the nomination ! That will be the ONLY way he wont win - if people don't realize they have to reg. REPUB in many states to make their vote count
doogleandalix 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ReasonTV sucks! RON PAUL 2012!
SuperSneakySteve 6 months ago
Reason magazine is a joke. Ron Paul however is not. He's my president.
xtop23 6 months ago 5
@xtop23 nothing libertarian about Reason magazine
blackraider777 6 months ago 14
Why would Mike Riggs from reason magazine say that he doesn't think that Ron Paul can't win the republican nomination? Is reason not really a libertarian think tank? Are they pushing the MSM ati-Paul narrative that influences unaware voters on which way to vote? Every person I try to convince into looking at Ron Paul's ideas starts by saying, 'Oh, I heard he can't win.'
It's dishonest to say that saying he can't win isn't affecting his chances of winning.
bermein 6 months ago
@bermein Reason has long been opposed to the rigorously principled libertarianism of Ron Paul. They are Republican first with a superficial smattering of nods to libertarian ideas. But like most political groups, they are not consistent. They are fence sitters.
leafwatch 6 months ago
@leafwatch I am a daily reader of Reason.com, and I can tell you that you are EXTREMELY uninformed. Republican first? Against rigorously principled libertarianism? Are you kidding me????? ITS A LIBERTARIAN MAGAZINE!! There may be left, right, anarchist or statist leaning readers, but they would never call themselves Republican. Many of them do in fact back Ron Paul, as do I.
liOVERLOADil 6 months ago
@liOVERLOADil
You gotta make sure as a Libertarian, you must always be skeptical, always question everyone and everything. You gotta look into people like Katherine Mangu-Ward and how she used to be a Weekly Standard staffer, a known neoconservative magazine.
b07rivera 6 months ago
@liOVERLOADil I do read Reason Hit and Run with some regularity, and it has seemed more libertarian than the publication I'd been acquainted with for decades -- long enough to remember the vicious hit pieces on Dr. Paul. The tone has moderated, but there are individuals on the staff who are not reliable. Many use the term libertarian without reference to its consistent core principles.
leafwatch 6 months ago
@leafwatch I think that the impression you're getting is from a lack of established platform at Reason. Its makeup of Libertarians is fairly broad, (left, right, statis, anarchist). For the most part we follow the saying "Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative". Every once in a while there is the odd article that is clearly not meant for Reason, and it gets bashed to hell in the comments section -- which is where the libertarian ideas really flow.
liOVERLOADil 6 months ago
@liOVERLOADil There are many libertarian forums where ideas flow freely, and get bashed spiritedly; I enjoy them thoroughly. But Reason seemed to be more about outreach; yet it sends very muddled messages when key editorial staff attack the one actual and consistently proven libertarian on the political scene. Opponents of libertarians are not only confused but given false ammunition. While I do take the long view of the fight for liberty, "un-friendly fire" too often reverses progress.
leafwatch 6 months ago
@leafwatch I honestly don't see that at all, and I can't remember the last time they mudraked Paul. Maybe last election, but I wasn't reading Reason at the time. In fact, there is an article on Reason right now that talks about the Iowa straw poll and puts Paul in a positive light (400 comments so far!).
liOVERLOADil 6 months ago
@liOVERLOADil I hope you are correct, but the woman editor who recently joined the Establishment marginalization of Dr. Paul set back my hopes. I'll be watching; if Reason truly becomes reliable, you'll gain a supporter.
leafwatch 6 months ago
@leafwatch As far as Reasons credibility goes, I follow the comments first and the articles second. Reason TVs Nick Gillespie is always fantastic, but some of these new women don't seem to have a clue. Maybe they're trying to appeal to the younger crowd? As far as the guy on this video, I think he's trying to push Johnson because Paul is beginning to be too main stream for Libertarians. Libertarians seem to be a crowd that often embraces the uncommon as hip...
liOVERLOADil 6 months ago
@bermein I hear that about candidates, but as a voter I think "Who the fuck cares?". Are we voting for who we, individually, want as the president, or who we think will win? The latter makes no sense at all...
liOVERLOADil 6 months ago
Ron Paul joked that if he lost as a Republican he would run as a Democrat.
johnsonjive 6 months ago
It's too bad the Rockwell camp and Koch camp don't do more to cooperate based on their many agreements rather than focus on the few disagreements that they have chosen to be at war about since Koch forced Rothbard out of Cato.
There is nothing logical about the Koch camp (Reason, Cato, etc) refusing to advocate Ron Paul as the most appropriate and realistic choice for advocates of individual liberty.
This is a sad war that only benefits the big government.
bobmaloney 6 months ago
FINALLY!!! Ron Paul is getting press! All it took was the media to talk about them not talking about him! ;P
Brambleiah 6 months ago 2
Ron Paul is a guy that politically I would disagree with but personally respect. And that's unique among modern GOP leaders.
He shown consistency in his beliefs and principals, he refuses to be swayed by the mob, and is open to compromise and pragmatism.
Which is why he has No chance.
bshieldsbb01 6 months ago
Its funny how Thom distances himself from the cop media as if he wasnt a whore himself. Fake liberals like Thom used to claim their were antiwar during the Bush yrs but wont come out against Obama. Fake two faced liberals like Thom ignored Paul until they couldnt anymore. And you will now see Dems play the fearmongering card against Paul. Thom is a traitor to his country and a sellout.
truthout911 6 months ago
Reason Magazine is awful, but the guy made some valid points.
As annoyed as I am by Ron Paul's right wing ideas, such as his absurd notions about taxation and social safety nets, I do admire him and support him. I have since I was 16 years old.
PurpleHoneyBear 6 months ago
Hi Thom, First of all Thank YOU so much for excellent journalism of YOURS in shows and interviews. As far as Ron Paul is concerned: do we really wonder about the media, lobbyism, the Military Industrial Complex, f.e.? I highly value Ron Paul, for what he stands for, and that for a long period of time. Interesting enough a German boulevard was quoting from what Mrs. Bachmann had to say in recent public appearances. Sarah Palin revisited? Oh No, not again. Lisa
Sundrumify 6 months ago
Hey Riggs - where have YOU been, all our political lives? That was some cool analysis of the Ron Paul media blackout 'principled non-voter?' Damn. How many writers/editors have admitted that, in public?
'They take their cues.... from GOP kingmakers'. Right on the money.
I admit to a bias AGAINST Reason magazine, but for what it's worth - you're too good for them, Riggs.
More. Do more interviews.
DCWhatthe 6 months ago
Dr. RP OWNS BOTH PARTIES.
Democrats: Gov't is my Mommy.
Republicans: Gov't is my Daddy.
Ron Paul: I'm an adult.
trick29420 6 months ago
"libretarians, are really republicans who wanna smoke pot and get laid"...nice...
2ruthfox82 6 months ago
Libertarian is a Principled Non voter that would vote for Gary Johnson......If he were to actually break his principles......Future isn't looking too bright for gary Johnson...."A lot of Libertarians like him.....But none of them will be voting.....Gary says "Crap!"
someguy6978 6 months ago
Legalize all plants you are not my slave master you don't own me you work for me and you want to destroy millions of children
usaintltrade 6 months ago
Enemy of Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Europe, & America ---- Jew
1. Goldman Sachs CEO, Lyold Blankfein - Jew
2. IMF Deputy CEO, John Lisky is Jew
3. Ex IMF CEO, Dominic Strauss is Jew
4. World Bank CEO, Robert Zoellick is Jew
5. Ex World Bank CEO, James Woolfesen is Jew
6. Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke is Jew
7. Ex Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan is Jew
8. Obama Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner is Jew
9. George Bush Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson is Jew
Stevie68000 6 months ago
@Stevie68000 Yes..but as a Jew, I call them Zionists. That way, I can lump in more bastards like, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Tony Blair, etc without anyone other than Zionists calling me an anti-semite. Zionist Bankster scum own us all and everything we think is ours. They are literally the enemies of humanity...many Zionists are not Jewish but hey hide behind innocent people who take the bullets of blame, never hitting the source of the evil. By keeping us divided, they will defeat us all!
emorganschuster62 6 months ago 14
@emorganschuster62 Serisouly. I'm a Paul supporter who happens to be Jewish too, and I say, to hell with all of those globodouches!
TheREALDanontheMoon 6 months ago
@TheREALDanontheMoon It amazes me when I see Jews who don't support Ron Paul. I mean don't all Jews support sound money? Assuming the stereotype is accurate of course.
emorganschuster62 6 months ago
Ron Paul = Voldemort....
He is, He who shall not be named lol.
ViraIVideos 6 months ago 12