Ron Paul ponders politics, 2012 run

[Democratic Hawk]

It seems Paul's popularity increased greatly after the election was over. He was ignored during the Republican Primary but once Obama was elected he suddenly became a viable figure in the conservative movement. He will be one of the oldest presidential candidates ever but if he runs he could place in third place and help promote his movement. His son Rand could be viable candidate in 2012 but he has been kind of pandering to the Neocons.

If forced to choose, I'd take a neocon over some extreme right-wing libertarian la-la-lander who really needs to get out of the Ivory Tower a bit more

[Democratic Hawk]

It seems Paul's popularity increased greatly after the election was over. He was ignored during the Republican Primary but once Obama was elected he suddenly became a viable figure in the conservative movement. He will be one of the oldest presidential candidates ever but if he runs he could place in third place and help promote his movement. His son Rand could be viable candidate in 2012 but he has been kind of pandering to the Neocons.

If forced to choose, I'd take a neocon over some extreme right-wing libertarian la-la-lander who really needs to get out of the Ivory Tower a bit more

Uh, why wouldn't you? You are a neocon, are you not, Mr. Hawk?

On the whole liberty-security axis, yes I'm a neocon but being a man of conscience - a social conscience - I'm economically centre-left

[Democratic Hawk]

It seems Paul's popularity increased greatly after the election was over. He was ignored during the Republican Primary but once Obama was elected he suddenly became a viable figure in the conservative movement. He will be one of the oldest presidential candidates ever but if he runs he could place in third place and help promote his movement. His son Rand could be viable candidate in 2012 but he has been kind of pandering to the Neocons.

If forced to choose, I'd take a neocon over some extreme right-wing libertarian la-la-lander who really needs to get out of the Ivory Tower a bit more

Uh, why wouldn't you? You are a neocon, are you not, Mr. Hawk?

On the whole liberty-security axis, yes I'm a neocon but being a man of conscience - a social conscience - I'm economically centre-left

That's not incompatible with neoconservatism. Why do you think it is?

Well Dumbya was in thrall to that supply-side nonsense, which is something I never bought and haven't since the Reagan tax cuts of 1981 that were supposed to see the US economy grow by 5% in 1982 fell spectacularly short

[Democratic Hawk]

It seems Paul's popularity increased greatly after the election was over. He was ignored during the Republican Primary but once Obama was elected he suddenly became a viable figure in the conservative movement. He will be one of the oldest presidential candidates ever but if he runs he could place in third place and help promote his movement. His son Rand could be viable candidate in 2012 but he has been kind of pandering to the Neocons.

If forced to choose, I'd take a neocon over some extreme right-wing libertarian la-la-lander who really needs to get out of the Ivory Tower a bit more

Uh, why wouldn't you? You are a neocon, are you not, Mr. Hawk?

On the whole liberty-security axis, yes I'm a neocon but being a man of conscience - a social conscience - I'm economically centre-left

That's not incompatible with neoconservatism. Why do you think it is?

Well Dumbya was in thrall to that supply-side nonsense, which is something I never bought and haven't since the Reagan tax cuts of 1981 that were supposed to see the US economy grow by 5% in 1982 fell spectacularly short

Dumbya's economic philosophy was certainly interventionist, "supply-side nonsense" or not.

For all of that supply side nonsense, median incomes fell under Bush 43, who, of course, has the worst record on jobs of any full-term president this side of Herbert Hoover. Thought wealth was supposed to "trickle-down"?

[Democratic Hawk]

Sure, laissez-faire's only been dead forever now, makes sense to blame it for a government-engineered financial meltdown in 2008.

The sooner the "cult of neoliberalism" goes the way of revolutionary socialism the better. Nowt good ever came of ideological rigormortis

[Democratic Hawk]

Sure, laissez-faire's only been dead forever now, makes sense to blame it for a government-engineered financial meltdown in 2008.

The sooner the "cult of neoliberalism" goes the way of revolutionary socialism the better. Nowt good ever came of ideological rigormortis

Good, we can agree on something.

Well I've never been much of straight down-the-line ideologue one way or the other. But I see all economic through the prism of liberalism be it the new liberalism of the pragmatic center, which gave us the Golden Age, or the neoliberalism of the ideological Right, which gave us the 'Crash of 2008' and the Great Recession

I guess its only a matter of time before we know whether a reprisal of the Great Depression was, admirably, averted or merely delayed

[Democratic Hawk]

Sure, laissez-faire's only been dead forever now, makes sense to blame it for a government-engineered financial meltdown in 2008.

The sooner the "cult of neoliberalism" goes the way of revolutionary socialism the better. Nowt good ever came of ideological rigormortis

Good, we can agree on something.

Well I've never been much of straight down-the-line ideologue one way or the other. But I see all economic through the prism of liberalism be it the new liberalism of the pragmatic center, which gave us the Golden Age, or the neoliberalism of the ideological Right, which gave us the 'Crash of 2008' and the Great Recession

I guess its only a matter of time before we know whether a reprisal of the Great Depression was, admirably, averted or merely delayed

The fact of the matter is, there can never be stable and widespread economic prosperity in the long-term as long as there is the State.

Quite the contrary given that the best years most ordinary people ever had were the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, when median incomes grew by 66%

Indeed, all the 'Crash of 2008' tells me is that there is a case for more active government to 1) regulate the excesses of the market and 2) create a more fair society

The cost of the Crash and the ensuring Great Recession should be met, primarily, by those who have reaped most of the gains these past 30 years in accordance with the ability to pay principle

[Democratic Hawk]

You seem to have some preconceived ideological notions that fail to take into account facts. You repeatedly claim that the 'Crash of 2008' is justification for expanded government, when there are no facts to back that up.

In fact, the reality of what happened and how it happened makes clear the need to get rid of government.

The sole purposes of the State are to loot, enslave, and murder people. It has succeeded in those goals quite marvelously.

Without order there will only ever be chaos. If chaos is more to your liking, I thoroughly recommend Somalia