Ron Paul in 2012

[Michael Hardner]

I cannot, for the life of me, imagine the Ron Paul supporters dismissing it if any of the candidates they do not support had had such racist comments published in a newsletter in their name. This link sums up the remarks and presents them in a slideshow that highlights the worst of the comments:

Ron Paul racist newsletters: The top 10 most racially insensitive claims

How does such a thing happen unknown to any responsible, intelligent person, who values their good name? - Just the fact that it happened is cause for concern.

My thoughts exactly. He's either naive or disorganized or both.

[GostHacked]

If I recall correctly, and I think that I do, you're also of the ilk to whom anti-Semitic conspiracy theories appeal.

I have no ill towards Jews. I am however, not a big fan of Israel. Ignoring that works for your argument. It allows you to be consistant in your words and when arguing this view of yours.

After all, you're an Alex Jones follower. Simple (and false) answers to complex questions appeal to simple people. So it's no surprise to anyone on MLW that the narrative of "the Jews did it!" resonates with someone like yourself.

I am no follower. I am however a regular listener. And he does not spew anti-semitism on his show. He actually tries to stay away from that regardless of callers into his show trying to bait him on it. And I don't buy into the 'Jews did it' either. But feel free to ignore that in your future post about me being an anti-semit. No matter how many times I have consistantly posted that view, you just do not want to accept it. It simply does not support your argument. So that ends up to be more of a problem for you than it is for me.

If not the Jews, then it's the globalists, the neo-cons, the Bilderberg group, the "banksters", or maybe even the Free Masons. Either way, it's always some shadow conspiracy group pulling the strings behind the scenes and pulling the wool over the eyes of the public. Thankfully, in this Matrix-type world of lies and deception, we have Alex Jones (Morpheus) and his fledgling redeemers like yourself (Neo, perhaps?) who will guide the rest of us ignorant masses to the light of emancipation.

Well, there is something goin on. And it is behind the scenes. And both you and I will become a victim under whatever is around the corner. These people are behind the scenes. They are banker and they are globalists. And whoever these people are don't like any of us. This is why they play us of each other like this while they continue to get away with the things they have done. Because we have people on both sides of this argument, people like you, and people like me ignorant of the fact that we are being played and manipulated by these people. They want us to fight each other and we do which distracts us from seeing and understanding what they are doing. We buy into it. Why?

Metaphorically, it is a matrix. Do you trust everything that comes out of the TV and Internet? It's a form of information control. And while they control us, they make us fight each other. They don't care that you are Jewish, and they would not care if I was an anti-semite either.

Edited December 25, 2011 by GostHacked

[maple_leafs182]

I can't speak on behalf of all Ron Paul supporters but none that I have talked to support Ron Paul because they believe he is anti-semetic or because they are anti-semetic and they want Israel to fall. They like his views of ending the wars and getting out of entangling alliances.

[monty16]

cybercoma has given us all the best defence of Ron Paul that could be offered. Good work cybercoma! You've shown us that Ron Paul is not the only racist pig we have to deal with!

And the second best defence of Ron Paul is to hear his followers ignore his racism. That's exactly what I predicted they would do. They see it as quite unimportant and I have to wonder if that's because it's something they would say themselves. Actually I wouldn't have expected a better defence of Ron Paul than this second best one but I was surprised. It seems that hypocrisy has risen to a new level.

[Guest Manny]

I can't speak on behalf of all Ron Paul supporters but none that I have talked to support Ron Paul because they believe he is anti-semetic or because they are anti-semetic and they want Israel to fall. They like his views of ending the wars and getting out of entangling alliances.

I don't know much about him but some of his ideas sound good. Like scaling back the aggressive military campaigns, and reducing the level of government control on people's lives. But I don't agree with some of his hardcore libertarian ideas, because I think there needs to be a social safety net to keep people from falling completely to the bottom. And I don't trust giving such power to big business corporations, especially without regulation.

But in regards to these latest headlines of his racism, didn't he say already many times over that he didn't write those things, and he doesn't agree with them? Why do people (CNN) keep putting them in his face still, and make the headlines imply like he wrote them.

[GostHacked]

I don't know much about him but some of his ideas sound good. Like scaling back the aggressive military campaigns, and reducing the level of government control on people's lives. But I don't agree with some of his hardcore libertarian ideas, because I think there needs to be a social safety net to keep people from falling completely to the bottom. And I don't trust giving such power to big business corporations, especially without regulation.

But in regards to these latest headlines of his racism, didn't he say already many times over that he didn't write those things, and he doesn't agree with them? Why do people (CNN) keep putting them in his face still, and make the headlines imply like he wrote them.

It's so they can try to get a 'gotcha' moment and then spread that around the airwaves to discredit him. The MSM is playing a role in trying to sideline Ron Paul. This to me is proof of such tactic.

[Guest Manny]

And yet despite his claims disavowing the articles, the vilification of Paul continues, this time taking a more personal and contemptuous tone-

Ron Paul: Codger, crank or more?

Washington (CNN) -- Texas congressman Ron Paul now leads among Iowa Republicans and has tied Newt Gingrich for second in New Hampshire. Republican conservatives have cycled through a series of "Not Mitts." Is it now Paul's turn?

Paul's core following has been small but fervid. However, Paul now is gaining a larger following, especially among younger voters attracted by his message of drug legalization and his comprehensive -- if utterly wrong-headed -- explanation of the country's economic crisis.

Unexpectedly, young voters seem also to appreciate Paul's grandfatherly anti-charisma: his self-presentation as a good-natured old codger, charmingly baffled by the modern world. The ill-fitting suits, the quavering voice and the slack-jawed laugh all support the image of an anti-politician, the lone voice of integrity in a sullied word.

...snip

The daffy old coot side of Ron Paul's personality is genuine enough. The crank side is certainly genuine, as are at least some of the racial views. Even after Paul abandoned the crude race-baiting of his 1990s newsletters, he continued to engage in elaborate apologetics for the Confederate side of the Civil War.

Also genuine, however, is the huckster aspect of the Ron Paul persona. That's the persona that terrifies people who had never before heard of "diffraction grating" that the government might use this optical scanning technology, which can detect counterfeiting, to wiretap their wallets.

Ron Paul's admirers see him as a man of integrity. They are tragically mistaken about that. Despite his too-dotty-to-lie persona, Ron Paul is not in fact on the level. In evading responsibility for his newsletters, Paul has replied "I don't know" and "I don't remember" to queries whose answers he must know and surely remembers. The back story of the newsletters shows a man who, sufficiently saturated in racism and extremism himself, was ready to exploit the even greater racism and extremism of others for financial gain. Ron Paul is the Max Bialystock of monetary cranks -- and this latest presidential campaign represents the summit of his bunco artist career, his very own "Springtime for Hitler."

Is it normal for a news outlet like CNN to take such an offensive tone against a presidential frontrunner such as Ron Paul?

[GostHacked]

Is it normal for a news outlet like CNN to take such an offensive tone against a presidential frontrunner such as Ron Paul?

Yes it is. During Bush Jrs time in office Fox news loved him. Republican. And they hate Obama , Democrat. CNN was critical of Bush, but not so with Obama. I think with this election process people are starting to really understand how dirty politics and the media are.

The main stream media is definately doing what it can to sideline Ron Paul, simply because he is a threat to the status quo of wasted money on wars, foreign aid, and the fast encroaching police state. He is for personal responsibility. He does not care for gays or gay marriage, but he won't stop them from living the way they want. It's kind of scary when he talks about protecting the freedoms and the bill of rights people think he is loopy. What really is loopy about protecting civil freedoms and liberties? That is the puzzling part to me.

[monty16]

Manny asked:

Is it normal for a news outlet like CNN to take such an offensive tone against a presidential frontrunner such as Ron Paul?

Good one Manny! Yes, it's norma for any news outlet. The first question to ask is, 'how offensive is the candidate'? This is softball compared to how O'Reilly interrupted president Obama over 30 times in an interview. But Obama didn't have to pull his mic off and he didn't have to try to avoid any of the questions. If Obama had any serious flaws then the interview would have gotten reall ugly. But alas, O'Reilly tried every dirty trick in the book and failed. It's the politician ya know, not the interviewer or the t.v. station.

To prove this all an interviewer would need to do is ask Michelle Bawwwkman why she believes that evolution is not a valid scientific theory and it would get ugly again. And who could blame the interviewer on that one. Like, it would be like trying to blame Couric for asking Palin what books she reads! It can't get any dirtier than that could it!!!

[dre]

Is it normal for a news outlet like CNN to take such an offensive tone against a presidential frontrunner such as Ron Paul?

Well, its inevitable with Ron Paul. Hes going after so many special interests at once, Im suprised hes still alive. If he actually won and implemented a non interventionalist foreign policy CNN would lose a LOT of their revenue, as would other news outlets. These companies make billions of dollars from interventional foreign policy. Not to mention hes threatening to take all the corporate welfare away from the defense industry, and all kinds of other segments of the private sector that exist by sucking on the US governments gigantic tits, and milking the public like a herd of dumb old cows.

Thats possibly the biggest flaw in his political strategy. Hes trying to fight all the toughest kids on the block at once, and its real tough to win doing that.

Edited December 27, 2011 by dre

[punked]

Well, its inevitable with Ron Paul. Hes going after so many special interests at once, Im suprised hes still alive. If he actually won and implemented a non interventionalist foreign policy CNN would lose a LOT of their revenue, as would other news outlets. These companies make billions of dollars from interventional foreign policy. Not to mention hes threatening to take all the corporate welfare away from the defense industry, and all kinds of other segments of the private sector that exist by sucking on the US governments gigantic tits, and milking the public like a herd of dumb old cows.

Thats possibly the biggest flaw in his political strategy. Hes trying to fight all the toughest kids on the block at once, and its real tough to win doing that.

Not to mention his monetary policy wouldn't only be bad for CNN but every American citizen.

[maple_leafs182]

Not to mention his monetary policy wouldn't only be bad for CNN but every American citizen.

How so?

[monty16]

Ron Paul's agenda is so ridiculous that it shouldn't be taken seriously. Why does anyone? Nobody should think that American citizens would ever submit to such outlandish changes and nearly total abandonment of so many of the country's social measures. His agenda is promoting something similar to Dickensian England.

I suspect that any fairly intelligent American must understand that and are only continuing to play Ron Paul's game in the interim until the repubs are ready to be more serious. Whackos like Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Santorum and co. are not serious!

[maple_leafs182]

Ron Paul's agenda is so ridiculous that it shouldn't be taken seriously. Why does anyone? Nobody should think that American citizens would ever submit to such outlandish changes and nearly total abandonment of so many of the country's social measures. His agenda is promoting something similar to Dickensian England.

I suspect that any fairly intelligent American must understand that and are only continuing to play Ron Paul's game in the interim until the repubs are ready to be more serious. Whackos like Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Santorum and co. are not serious!

Just saying his views are ridiculous doesn't make them so. Why are they ridiculous?

[punked]

How so?

We have been through this. It has been dead wrong from 2008 on ward. He keeps spewing BS about how if you print money inflation will go through the roof and the US will become Zimbabwe. Well guess what from 2008 will now they have printed 3 times the money that existed in the US with normal to flat inflation AND the US bonds are now cheaper to sell then ever. Even cheaper then when they had surpluses. Know why? Because Ron Paul is wrong. We only have to look at the numbers to see how wrong he is about monetary policy.

[maple_leafs182]

We have been through this. It has been dead wrong from 2008 on ward. He keeps spewing BS about how if you print money inflation will go through the roof and the US will become Zimbabwe. Well guess what from 2008 will now they have printed 3 times the money that existed in the US with normal to flat inflation AND the US bonds are now cheaper to sell then ever. Even cheaper then when they had surpluses. Know why? Because Ron Paul is wrong. We only have to look at the numbers to see how wrong he is about monetary policy.

Ron Paul is the smartest candidate when it comes to monetary policy. The reason the US dollar is so strong is because people are scared of Europe so they are pulling their money from Europe and putting it in US because they think it is safer.

If the Fed wasn't printing money to cover the American governments debts then rates on bonds would rise significantly. If you think printing money to cover debt is sustainable then you are wrong. Do you know how much millions if not billions of dollars have been robbed from savers by keeping interest rates artificially low? But I guess if wall street is showing profits that is all that matters.

I don't know why you think Keynesian are so smart even though most didn't predict the collapse. The dollar will collapse eventually if America continues the same policies, if you aren't going to set up your investments for a post dollar world then you will see lots of your wealth disappear.

[dre]

Not to mention his monetary policy wouldn't only be bad for CNN but every American citizen.

So is the existing system. I disagree with the idea of returning the gold standard, but hes definately right that the Federal reserve system should either be abolished, or radically reformed.

He keeps spewing BS about how if you print money inflation will go through the roof and the US will become Zimbabwe.

Every economist on earth agrees that if you perpetually expand the monetary base faster than the economy is growing that inflation will be result.

Edited December 27, 2011 by dre

[punked]

Ron Paul is the smartest candidate when it comes to monetary policy. The reason the US dollar is so strong is because people are scared of Europe so they are pulling their money from Europe and putting it in US because they think it is safer.

If the Fed wasn't printing money to cover the American governments debts then rates on bonds would rise significantly. If you think printing money to cover debt is sustainable then you are wrong. Do you know how much millions if not billions of dollars have been robbed from savers by keeping interest rates artificially low? But I guess if wall street is showing profits that is all that matters.

I don't know why you think Keynesian are so smart even though most didn't predict the collapse. The dollar will collapse eventually if America continues the same policies, if you aren't going to set up your investments for a post dollar world then you will see lots of your wealth disappear.

You might want to look at the bond lending rates of those countries which are printing money (US, Japan, UK, etc) vs. those who can't or wont print money to cover their spending (EU countries). Fact is Japan has a much higher debt to GDP then say Italy and is paying 1% on their 10 years notes while Italy is paying what is it now 6%? Fact is Ron Paul is dead wrong.

At this point who predicted to the collapse is irrelevant. Now it is all about whose policies will help (Not Ron Paul's) and whose will hurt (Ron Paul's). It is that simple Ron Paul is advocating for policies which lead to the depression. That is a fact. I say no thank you to that.

Edited December 27, 2011 by punked

[punked]

So is the existing system. I disagree with the idea of returning the gold standard, but hes definately right that the Federal reserve system should either be abolished, or radically reformed.

Every economist on earth agrees that if you perpetually expand the monetary base faster than the economy is growing that inflation will be result.

You much Ron Paul are trying to move the argument to one which you believe you will win instead of one we are having. Fact is Ron would not print money to cover his bases, the other fact of the matter is that is what the US has done for the last 4 years and the results were not what you said they would be. You were wrong and don't understand how a liquidity trap works.

[GostHacked]

You might want to look at the bond lending rates of those countries which are printing money (US, Japan, UK, etc) vs. those who can't or wont print money to cover their spending (EU countries). Fact is Japan has a much higher debt to GDP then say Italy and is paying 1% on their 10 years notes while Italy is paying what is it now 6%? Fact is Ron Paul is dead wrong.

Italy got bailed out. Italy now is on the hook to pay that money back. Same with Greece. And the people who got those countries into trouble are the same ones now in charge of each country. Bankers and financiers. No matter if you print money or not, if a country is in debt (to whom????) the money still has to be paid back.

At this point who predicted to the collapse is irrelevant. Now it is all about whose policies will help (Not Ron Paul's) and whose will hurt (Ron Paul's). It is that simple Ron Paul is advocating for policies which lead to the depression. That is a fact. I say no thank you to that.

Maybe you have not been paying attention in the last few years. The depression is already on it's way. And it will happen no matter what. The real question is , who's polices will get the USA out of this mess sooner.

[punked]

Italy got bailed out. Italy now is on the hook to pay that money back. Same with Greece. And the people who got those countries into trouble are the same ones now in charge of each country. Bankers and financiers. No matter if you print money or not, if a country is in debt (to whom????) the money still has to be paid back.

Maybe you have not been paying attention in the last few years. The depression is already on it's way. And it will happen no matter what. The real question is , who's polices will get the USA out of this mess sooner.

Yep you are also dead wrong. Italy did get bailed out in some ways, it got EU banks to buy their bonds but they still must pay 6% interest to sell those bonds when Japan (who can print money) and has 200% debt to GDP is selling their bonds at 1%. The point here? Well it is that you and Ron Paul are wrong about what happens when in terms of monetary policy.

As for the depression being here you have no clue what a depression is apparently. Employment is going up despite the fact the the Ron Paul types have gotten different levels of the US government to lay off more then 600,000 people last year, because the private sector has been creating jobs. The US isn't out of the woods yet but Ron Paul policies are not going to help in the least. You better go out and buy gold and bullets though and live in a bunker because your view of the world is very off.

[monty16]

Without getting into a lot of detail on Ron Paul's agenda, the reason why it is ridiculous is because it will never be successfully brought about. Let's take his agenda of bringing all the troops home immediately for an example. First of all there is absolutely no way that his own party would ever back that idea. The Repub party is deadon opposed to doing that and so is the Dem party to a lesser extent. If anybody wants to be honest about this they would have to admit that Obama's smallish and token move to end the Iraq war and bring home the troops has been solidly condemned by the Republican party.

So there's perhaps the best example because it's his own party that would stop him, but including a lot of paid off Dems as well. This, as well as the rest of it is nothing more than pie in the sky which will never happen.

RIDICULOUS!

[punked]

Without getting into a lot of detail on Ron Paul's agenda, the reason why it is ridiculous is because it will never be successfully brought about. Let's take his agenda of bringing all the troops home immediately for an example. First of all there is absolutely no way that his own party would ever back that idea. The Repub party is deadon opposed to doing that and so is the Dem party to a lesser extent. If anybody wants to be honest about this they would have to admit that Obama's smallish and token move to end the Iraq war and bring home the troops has been solidly condemned by the Republican party.

So there's perhaps the best example because it's his own party that would stop him, but including a lot of paid off Dems as well. This, as well as the rest of it is nothing more than pie in the sky which will never happen.

RIDICULOUS!

Yah but with his monetary policy why he wont be able to enact it is because it is wrong. Every prediction he has made (hyperinflation, bond rises, etc) has been wrong in the last 4 years yet none of his followers care.

[GostHacked]

Yep you are also dead wrong. Italy did get bailed out in some ways, it got EU banks to buy their bonds but they still must pay 6% interest to sell those bonds when Japan (who can print money) and has 200% debt to GDP is selling their bonds at 1%. The point here? Well it is that you and Ron Paul are wrong about what happens when in terms of monetary policy.

Considering Obama signed and handed out the bailouts to prevent the USA from tanking instantly. Instead it just delays the inevitable. What is the USA's debt to GDP ratio? Has anyone considered what will happen when the country cannot pay it's debt load? When do the loan sharks come calling to collect?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

Federal debt exploded during World War II to over 120 percent of GDP, and then began a decline that bottomed out at 32 percent of GDP in 1974. Federal debt almost doubled in the 1980s, reaching 60 percent of GDP in 1990 and peaking at 66 percent of GDP in 1996, before declining to 56 percent in 2001. Federal debt started increasing again in the 2000s, reaching 70 percent of GDP in 2008. Then it exploded in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008, reaching 102 percent of GDP in 2011.

Federal debt has breached 100 percent of GDP twice since 1900: during World War II and in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008.

As for the depression being here you have no clue what a depression is apparently. Employment is going up despite the fact the the Ron Paul types have gotten different levels of the US government to lay off more then 600,000 people last year, because the private sector has been creating jobs. The US isn't out of the woods yet but Ron Paul policies are not going to help in the least. You better go out and buy gold and bullets though and live in a bunker because your view of the world is very off.

Even if you buy the numbers, unemployment has fallen only slightly in the past couple months. It's still kicking in the 9% or higher, depending on how one counts unemployment numbers.

The US debt load currently according to the link I posted, is over $US 10 trillion.

[dre]

You much Ron Paul are trying to move the argument to one which you believe you will win instead of one we are having. Fact is Ron would not print money to cover his bases, the other fact of the matter is that is what the US has done for the last 4 years and the results were not what you said they would be. You were wrong and don't understand how a liquidity trap works.

Actually youre the one thats trying to shift the argument to one you think you can win. I never said that the easing after the last asset bubble burst and destroyed the economy would immediately lead to Zimbabwe. Inflation is being held in check because theres a recession and businesses are having to reduce prices to move inventories. Its also being masked by the Fed keeping the overnight rate pegged to zero.

None of this does anything to disprove the view that increasing the money supply faster than the economy will eventually result in inflation.