So you think Ron Paul is crazy? (2002 video shows him making stunningly accurate predictions)

American Thinker ^ | 01/09/2012 | Jason McNew

[SeekAndFind]

Intellectually speaking, we live in fascinating, if dangerous, times. Given a larger view of history, it should be understood that nations, political systems, and currencies come and go on a fairly regular basis. Human freedom is an exception -- not the norm.

There are four core components necessary for the existence of an independent, sovereign nation: A system of laws (constitutional or otherwise,) geographical borders, a sound monetary system, and a defensive function.

Presently, the United States is failing (or trending toward failure) on the first three counts. Failure on two or more will lead to a failure of the fourth (national defense.) Capitalism notwithstanding, could it be that this is what Russia, China, and the emerging Islamic Caliphate want? Or what George Soros wants?

It is for this reason that I support Ron Paul for POTUS. Yes, detractors of Paul's foreign policy may have legitimate gripes -- in particular his seeming failure to understand that radical Islamists cannot be disincentivized in the same way that Soviet Communists could.

Here is a short, 2002 video of Ron Paul making a multitude of predictions in the areas of economics and geopolitics. Watch the entire thing before judging -- Paul's accuracy craves explanation.

http://youtu.be/zGDisyWkIBM ;

Could it be that Ron Paul is right about economics, the Constitution, and geopolitics, and that his detractors are the ones that have it wrong?

[Gennie]

I must have done something wrong in posting the link to the video, here it is again, 2nd time's a charm -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0no7O9zmE

[jpsb]

"perhaps a threat to the establishment’s status quo? or to the vested interests?

The establishment is in full blown panic over Ron Paul rising in the polls, thank G*d for the internet, the truth about Paul is getting out and the liars are exposed.

[hedgetrimmer]

You said New World Order as did Bush I for that matter, not me.

Globalism is the problem with our politics and our country. Bush I, Clinton, Bush II all pushed interdependence, as does the globalist Obama.

It is not 'fringe'. It is duly recorded in their own words and actions. It is treason to the United States Constitution and the compact our government is to uphold for the American people.

[Gennie]

“I know he is nuts, dangerous and tramples the US Constitution now.”

Can you explain to me what you mean exactly? I saw someone else reference it earlier in the thread too, but I thought Paul always deferred to the Constitution, which is why Romney had even made that statement Saturday night “Ask the Constitutionalist” regarding whether a state should ban birth control. How is he trampling the Constitution?

[Beagle8U]

“GDP grew nicely long term under the gold standard (e.g. late 1800’s) The problems, just like with currency, stem from politics and manipulation. Certainly the current dollar regime is a mess, we have no choices but future inflation or major recession.”

Great, go back to the late 1800’s and it will work kinda OK. But today everything is traded in a world market, that wasn't the case then. With no foreign trade to speak of, it might work...kinda.

That is why I said Ron Paul's brain can't deal with today's world.

[Leep]

You said,”I don’t think anyone in this thread is suggesting he ought to be President... Nice straw man.”

While you personally say you are not suggest he ought to be President.. from the article,
“It is for this reason that I support Ron Paul for POTUS”

My postings were not based on your opinions. Although, I can comment on them, too. Although,I must concede to being ignorant about what I should learn from this?
Am I suppose to concede Paul is really good at making predictions and or is nutty but brilliant?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Ron Paul...Kucinich...Nader.

...one wonders just where the flying saucer is parked...

If there were an event which all three were to attend, I wonder if they would all have their flying saucers parked together at a designated area in the lot?

[Proud2BeRight]

See my explanation in my post 17 in this thread.

[Responsibility2nd]

“Could it be that Ron Paul is right about..... the Constitution,...”

 

NO! I’m sick of that crappola about that nut. Ron Paul trashes the heart of the United States Constitution.

 

 

You exposed the true hypocricy of RoPaul and all libertarians.

 

While they hide behind the Constitution, they actually promote an agenda that is so liberal that they are dangerous.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I’m sick of this “Ron Paul is crazy” BS.

That’s Alinsky tactics. He may be wrong on some things, and he’s not my candidate. But he’s been a rare (lone) voice that has been right on issues of government and liberty for a long time.

Economic disaster is the greatest threat to our nation, not swarthy bomb throwers or border-crossing Mexicans.

I disagree on some issues, but most of what I hear of Paul’s positions comes from his hostile opponents, not from him.

I have studied and understand libertarianism, and agree with Ronald Reagan that it is at the core of conservatism.

Libertarianism is compatible with controlled borders and a sane foreign policy.

Sometimes, libertarians make provocative points to get attention, and to cause people to think. That might be a little bit of a strain for some.

If I don’t have any politically plausible anti-Romney to vote for this Saturday at my Nevada Caucus, I’m supporting Ron Paul, to send the statist Republicans a message.

If you take the message as: “I’m so angry at the big government Republicans that I’ll vote for a loony-bird who believes in small government, so be it.”

[ejonesie22]

I don't care if he guessed the last 20 Super-bowls right and won a 100 million, he is still a loon who has no issues with the Iranians orbiting a nuke and dropping it on my families head.

Lay off the bong hits and wake up Paulitards.

[FreedomPoster]

Well, I think the point the original poster of the article was trying to make is that RP gets a lot right. That was my take-away from “(2002 video shows him making stunningly accurate predictions)” added to the article title.

We would all be better off if our political class paid more attention to RP on economic issues.

[Proud2BeRight]

Typical conspiracy theory stuff. Take a phrase and twist and pervert it into a massive secret conspiracy. Illuminati, chemtrails, new world order, 9/11 conspiracies, the lunar landing made in a studio, alien abductions,...... It makes for entertaining and amusing late night radio and fact-twisting movies but it’s not for considering someone for the office of President of the United States.

[Norseman]

>>How is he trampling the Constitution?<<

I think the reply will be along the lines of not providing for a national defense, and that his drug policies will injure the common good, or some such.

As Republicans, I think we’re missing an opportunity here. Paul’s supporters (I’m guessing here) can probably be sorted into two groups, a lot of them with one foot in each group.

The first group wants what I want, extreme limits placed on the federal government, and soon. No mainline GOP candidate, other than Governor Perry, argues for closing down whole departments of the federal government (and Perry flubbed that message with his “oops” debacle.) But Perry and Paul are both right. We need to drastically reduce the scope of the federal government’s powers, because failing to do so creates the sort of environment where someone like Obama can wreak havoc due to the confusing array of national laws and regulations, many of which would have been deemed flat out unconstitutional by the founders.

In this regard, I think Perry, Santorum, or Gingrich could step up that part of their message and appeal to many of Paul’s current supporters.

The other area I find interesting is drug policy. I don’t think there’s any question that many of Paul’s young supporters, and maybe most of them, are concerned enough about our draconian marijuana laws that they will support someone like Ron Paul if he simply has the courage to say he’ll change them. Personally, I think it’s time for a serious discussion about treating marijuana exactly the way we treat cigarettes, and much like we treat alcohol. We could cut the jail populations in half (guessing here) and definitely improve prospects for efficient law enforcement when it comes to harder drugs.

While I doubt that any of the three conservative candidates (Santorum, Gingrich, Perry) have it in them to broach this subject in a way that will appeal to Paul’s supporters, if one of them did, the “electability” factor would, I suspect pull a lot of Paul’s support to the candidate who did so.

When 20% of the GOP primary voters consistently support a candidate, whether he be a loon or not, I think it’s foolish to ignore the reasons his supporters are so dedicated. Something useful could yet come out of Paul’s candidacy, should a more viable candidate decide to take his supporters more seriously, especially since much of what those supporters believe is in line with reining in the federal government.

[Norseman]

>>If I don’t have any politically plausible anti-Romney to vote for this Saturday at my Nevada Caucus, I’m supporting Ron Paul, to send the statist Republicans a message.

If you take the message as: “I’m so angry at the big government Republicans that I’ll vote for a loony-bird who believes in small government, so be it.”<<

I think you make an excellent example of the points I was trying to make in my post above (#114). Hang in there.

[fml]

Would you like to debate any of the facts I have presented above about your nutcase congressman?

I guess no. I was curious too.

[Proud2BeRight]

“I guess no. I was curious too.”

Facts are stubborn things.

[TV Dinners]

who else joined the air guard to avoid Vietnam?

[hedgetrimmer]

Alinsky!

I said NONE of those things. Only you.

[TV Dinners]

Alinsky would be so proud.