Posted on 12/24/2007 12:20:55 PM PST by G. Stolyarov II
My name is Gennady Stolyarov II. In August of 2002, I founded The Rational Argumentator, an online magazine that has consistently presented and promoted the ideas of reason and liberty and the emancipation of individuals from the stifling grip of political tyranny. Today, the United States of America is faced with an unprecedented opportunity to bring the goal of complete individual liberty to fruition. Never before have the prospects for reversing the onward march of statism and central planning looked so bright as today - but this may also be our last chance to avert an economic calamity of unprecedented proportions. Accordingly, I am pleased to announce my full, unreserved endorsement of Ron Paul for President in the 2008 election.
If there is one word to describe the agenda of Ron Paul, it is liberty. If there is one text in which Ron Paul's ideas are encapsulated, it is the U. S. Constitution. The unwavering consistency with which Dr. Paul has defended liberty and the Constitution is astonishing in a world dominated by ceaselessly flip-flopping, compromising, backstabbing politicians. Dr. Paul is known in Congress as "Dr. No" for his steadfast refusal to vote in favor of any act of government that is not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. Representative Paul recognizes that simply because a particular action or principle might be good or valuable does not imply that the government ought to use taxpayer funds to pursue that action or principle. Dr. Paul, having practiced medicine as an obstetrician for decades, understands the vital importance of medicine - but he rightly refuses to allow the government to usurp this field.
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
donation total 4th Quarter, as of 12:34 PM EST
So did Dr. Paul.
Paul kept Don Black’s money.
The money was spent before he was briefed on who Don Black was.
You want him to give Black his money back from someone else's donation?
www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism
You friggin' people are desperate.
Nice piece. I like it. Any politician who wants to leave me the Hell alone is a friend of mine. I disagree with Paul’s foreign policy as well.
You friggin’ people are desperate for answers that you traded your soul for the devil.
“....Knowing they’re lying doesn’t tell me the truth or give me the facts. Either I’m too paranoid and things aren’t going to where I think they’re going or I’m right and very confused about what can be done to stop it....”
Well, I should add some caveat. I covered the Pentagon and military services for years and by and large they are very trustworthy people who might decline to talk about certain things but, except for the occasional rare bad apple, almost never lie to anyone. The FBI is pretty good too. Many elements of Homeland Security (especially Coast Guard) are outstanding folks. Cheney is a really sharp guy, a straight shooter. I could name a few others...
But to your central point, I don’t know that “more knowledge” would make it better for you or any of us. I used to think that if everyone sat through three or four defense appropriation committee meetings run by Murtha (like I used to have to do) half the country would immediately take up arms and overthrow the whole bunch of them, at least the ones in Congress. And the bureaucrats in the domestic agencies—they are so disconnected from reality it’s like going to a Disney movie.
The one thing I can tell you for sure that is true is that we are now in a real war, and it’s a war for the future. It’s not something our government decided to contrive. It’s something the Islamists won’t give up on. So, whoever the president is, he or she has to be a hunter/killer somewhere in his or her heart and soul. The jihadists are not gonna go away, they are just gonna keep on coming. If our government fails at everything else, so be it. We the people will figure out how to fix it later. But if they fail in this war, there won’t be any “we the people” left to fix it.
If you would read von Mises' "Theory of Money and Credit" or James Grant's "Money of the Mind" you would be less confused about how the gold standard banking regime operated. The money supply wasn't restricted to the amount of gold in the system. 'Credit money', 'bank money', expanded with the economy. Gold convertibility served primarily to keep credit expansion from becoming an engine of inflation.
But, did not Rothbard define inflation as an increase in the money supply? Would not ‘credit money’ or ‘bank money’ be an increase in the money supply, ie, inflation? Besides, how could a bank loan more money than the bank actually itself owned? Would not that bank be insolvent?
I can't speak for Rothbard since I'm not familiar with all of his writing. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon caused by an over expansion of the money supply. Gold redemption serves as a brake on over expansion of the money supply, it doesn't prevent an increase of credit money. Banks create credit money when they issue loans. The creation of credit was predicated on the presentation of a 'real bill', and real bills doctrine is too much of a tangent to pursue in a post.
Don't confuse yourself with "the fallacy of the beard": one hair doesn't make a beard. Nor do ten. But at some point enough hairs do make a beard. The same with credit expansion. Gold convertibility provided a means to shave the beard.
Besides, how could a bank loan more money than the bank actually itself owned? Would not that bank be insolvent?
Banks have always loaned more money than they have on deposit. That's how fractional reserve banking works, and to cite Mises fractional reserve banking is banking. And it worked the same when the gold standard was in effect. Having no gold standard won't protect banks from insolvency, the problem of illiquidity on technically sound assets still exists.
You can find most of Rothbard’s writings at the Von Mises Institute. Trust me, Rothbard believed in a fixed money supply.
The real issues here, since this is a Ron Paul thread, is what is Ron Paul’s stance on fractionalized banking and the money supply? I believe he opposes, but if you have other information, please provide.
“The one thing I can tell you for sure that is true is that we are now in a real war, and it’s a war for the future. It’s not something our government decided to contrive. It’s something the Islamists won’t give up on.”
I believe the biggest problem this country faces now is deluded citizens. American’s who are embracing socialism in ever increasing numbers. I can’t believe some of the junk that’s being talked about now on basic Constitutional rights. Particularly on the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The general insanity that’s passed off as truth or fact today that’s being swallowed whole. It’s these socialists that threaten me everyday, not some cloudy so-called terrorist threat. I think about the odds, there’s no comparison.
There are so many long time held beliefs and convictions I’ve started to question (not my conservative beliefs but rather the actions of our government). Terrorism is just one of them. This so-called War on Terrorism, well, if I look at it from the perspective of how it’s being fought it doesn’t look like much of a war to me. This WOT has also ushered in real serious privacy questions that at least from what I understand, could bring some really nasty abuses of power. Waco, and many other things, has shown me the government does not mind abusing its power at all or that they give a damn about individual lives.
“But to your central point, I don’t know that “more knowledge” would make it better for you or any of us.”
Whenever world events take place I always find myself asking “What’s really going on?” A case in point was the Chinese blasting one of their satellites into a billion pieces and one of their subs surfacing along side an US aircraft carrier which the US claimed they didn’t know it was there. Then I read an article here on FR that was I believe the first time I felt that I knew what was really going on with these 2 seemingly unrelated events. It was all about Taiwan and a newly elected President who wanted to claim independence from the Chinese. China used the above mentioned events to show the US to stay out of it, among other things. It was quite a nice experience to know what was happening and the reasons behind it.
“...I can’t believe some of the junk that’s being talked about now on basic Constitutional rights. Particularly on the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The general insanity that’s passed off as truth or fact today that’s being swallowed whole. It’s these socialists that threaten me everyday, not some cloudy so-called terrorist threat. I think about the odds, there’s no comparison....”
Well, if you believe the government is more a threat to you than al Qaeda, then you should be happy to vote for Ron Paul who promises to withdraw from all engagement with threats from without. Personally, I hope you always have a reason to believe what you do—even if I don’t. If a day comes that you realize the terrorists are the real threat, it won’t be because I convinced you. They will be the ones to do that. But you might not be choosing among varying degrees of ill-defined “privacy” as unmentioned in the Constitution. It might be more like choosing to burn to death or jump from the 89th floor. I don’t say that to make an argument with you, just as an historical fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.