RuPaul
Posted on 03/30/2007 6:46:35 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
RuPaul
ROn Paul voted with the Democrats on "defeat and retreat" in Iraq, and compalined about our involvement in Afhganistan .... NOT committed to winning the GWOT, committed to isolationism, a very pre-9/11 concept.
What unnatural economic structures?
Not following Paul's recommendations amounts to a conscious decision to keep the floating crap game going for a few more years - or decades - but it guarantees that at some point the central bankers are going to lose control of the whole mess and deliver the USA into a Weimar Germany-like economic situation. But we are so far down that path now that it's probably too late, anyway.
I am taking a shot in the dark here, but do you believe that we have an actual trade deficit? Not just on products but on the monetary side as well?
Actually, Ron Paul does not propose an immediate transition to the Gold Standard. He believes that a return to monetary solvency must be accomplished incrementally, and his opening salvo would simply be the elimination of all Sales or Capital Gains Taxes on Gold and allowing Payment in Gold as Legal Tender in Satisfaction of Debts. In other words, allowing Gold to (at least in a minimal way) compete with Federal Reserve Notes as "Money", and moving forward from there as appropriate UNTIL a full restoration of the Gold Standard is monetarily possible.
And Ron Paul proposes NO restrictions on Trade. He's one of the most ardent Free-Traders in Congress. Rather, he proposes the abolition of Multinational Trade Authorities which infringe on US Sovereignty, and the reduction of Tax and Regulatory burdens on US Industry (so that American Workers can better compete).
I'm confused. What does your dream-girl have to do with Ron Paul, the subject of this thread?
You are right IMHO that with Guliani as president we will not see major tax reform.
OTOH, no matter who is President, it is the Congress that sets the tax reform agenda, and it wont happen without a major increase in conservative and Republican representation anyway.
Not really. There's more and more Republicans saying the same every day. I hardly feel unique any more.
Best, OP
Well, that's correct, so far as it goes...but it wasn't quite what I was looking for.
You see, you can say (for example) that one degree Celsius is "a unit of temperature," but to be specific you say that one degree Celsius is "one one-hundredth of the difference in temperature between the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water at sea level." Likewise, one gram is the weight of a cubic centimeter of water, and one milliliter is the volume of that quantity of water. A liter of water is the volume of water that weighs one kilogram. The units are defined in terms of measurable quantities of real materials with fixed properties.
In other words, the units used to measure things are defined in terms that allow us to quickly understand their meaning. When we were on the gold standard, the dollar was also like this. Instead of saying that a dollar was "a unit of fiat currency," you could say that it was "a unit of currency equal in value to X weight of gold."
Since we're off the gold standard, that's no longer a valid definition...X isn't fixed any more. So what's a dollar? It used to be influenced, if not controlled, by the relative abundance or scarcity of the physical paper notes that represent dollars. Now, however, we don't even remotely have enough paper notes to represent all the dollar transactions that occur in a given day. A number in my bank's "ledger" goes down, a number in my utility company's "books" goes up, and no paper notes are involved.
So what's a dollar again? How is it defined? What determines its value?
What Ron Paul understands is that (1) that Congress should have declared war against Iraq...or refused to do so...so that Democrats could not now try to offer weasely explanations as to why they supported a resolution giving the President the sole authority to decide if, when and how we would attack Iraq AND (2) the action in Iraq has made the threat of Islamofacism worse...at least accrding to the Presdident's own Intelligence Estimate last year
Ron Paul deserves praise for consistently standing against this hare-brained scheme in Iraq that has, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American troops' lives, done nothing but made a kingmaker out of Iran in that area and increased the recruitment of jihadists around the world (again, according the Presdident's own Intelligence Estimate last year)
As for voting with the Democrats...my opinions won't be influenced by what the contemptible, opportunitistic Democrats think or do...I frankly couldn't care less how they vote...I'm only interested (and I believe Ron Paul is only interested) in the interested in what is best for America...and, on Iraq, Ron Paul was right...its time for some of my holdout conservative compatriot brothers to recognize this
I think he'd be pro-war, provided it was actually a declared WAR and not arbitrary action on the part of the executive branch.
Expecting that wars should be declared before they are fought is hardly an un-American position.
Then why would we vote for him?
Look, I'm sure both men are good people, but I don't think either one
has any chance at winning the nomination.
I believe Rudy will be our next President. Fred could also pull a surprise.
It was so appealing, until the entry of 'voting third party' arose. Voting for Paul in the primaries is well defended, on the other hand.
What is really frightening is that so few people understand our economic system. If Ron Paul actually got elected he might have enough support to destroy our economy.
I believe Ron Pauls heart is in the right place, but like the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
You know what I think is "dangerous"?
Two Islamic terrorists with AK-47s and IED's slipping over the border with Mexico and driving up to some Day-Care or Kindergarten in middle Texas. I think that's MORE "dangerous" than Two Hundred Islamic Terrorists in Iraq, most of which belong to radically-opposed factions who want to kill eachother.
So, I'm voting for the candidate who believes in REAL BORDER SECURITY rather than the Globalist RINOs who want to try and Referee an Islamic Civil War 7,000 miles away.
 |
I'm voting for former Vietnam Combat Flight Surgeon, and Leader of Ronald Reagan's Electoral Delegation from Texas: In 2008, I'm Voting for RON PAUL! |
 |
He's not. He's one of the most ardent Free-Traders in all of Congress.
LOL! Yes, THAT will make him a good candidate.
Will you willingly fly into a severe storm on a plane piloted by man who never wanted to be a pilot? Of course not, only a fool would do so.
A lot of monetarists believe that a currency must be based on a tangible (natural) object that has a stable value, such as gold. The underlying flaw with this theory is that with things like gold, there is a finite supply, and shifts in market demand could/would create wild fluctuations with the value of said currency. You could actually see daily inflationary or deflationary changes in prices simply because of the change in purchasing power of said currency. We haven't seen much of this trend in the price recently (albeit, we are running a reverse correlation of the price of gold and inflation lately) but imagine what would happen if we go back to a gold based currency how the demand of the commodity would effect price. It would actually hurt gold investors too because the rise in gold would be directly reflected in the purchasing power of their dollar, and thus, would make an increase flat with their purchase.
Um, no he wouldnt be for involvement in Iraq, and if it was a matter of the formalisms, he's just pretending cluelessness.
Teh ytook a vote that gave Congressional authorization. Was he the only one who didnt notice that?
He knows, or should know, what is at stake with his votes.
He's opposed 'regime change' against Iraq from the get-go.
When?
unit of exchange. I think you would call it fiat money
Well...its not what it used to be...when the money supply is increased as rapidly as the supply of US dollars is...its causes inflation...which is just another tax...this one on savings...to support out-of-control government spending
That's why the most important argument that the Federalists made in support of the US Constitution (and the argument the Anti-Federalists could not really counter) was that the Constitution would rid the country of the scourge of worthless paper money by giving the feds the power to coin money (precious metal money) and prohibiting the states from "emitting bills of credit" (paper or fiat currency)
Of course...hidden taxes like inflation aren't recognized by most Americans and the Constitution is now ignored as a relic or an inconvenience...even by so-called "conservatives"
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.