Worthwhile Possible GOP nominees

[Associate Justice PiT]

     All would be good, though Gary Johnson or Peter Schiff would be best.

[pogo stick]

Great I get to choose between 4 looney tunes.  All of these canidates posture themselves with people who hates jews and blacks.  I mean the Michigan Coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign was an organizer for the Ku Klux Klan.  He is also supported by a number of Neo-Nazi and racist websites and happily takes money from many Ku Ku Klux Klan members without returning it back.  Most notably he took money from Grand Wizard and proprietor of stormfront, Don Black ($500, which he didn't need).  l of them beleive that the Civil War, WW1, and WW2 should have never been fought.  They all think we should have absolutely no rules and regulations over businesses.  That means providing businesses witht he opppurtunity to pollute and decrease the health standards for their employees.  They secretly beleive that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by George Bush and the Jews, or Israel.  We can make that assumption based on the idiots that go to libertarian meetings and rallys.  Ron Paul and his son suggested that we eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office.  I've also heard Napolitano, Schiff and Johson support that statement.

These people are not worthy canidates.   There actually dangerous canidates.   Anyone who
pports them are dangerous kooks.

Rand and Abdrew never said nay of these. Do some research. That's not from MNSBC

[Mint]

The 9/11 truthers are enough to scare me.

He has more on average supporting him, but really you'll find plenty of 9/11 truthers in the Democratic Party too. It's a pretty widespread conspiracy theory.

Paul also stated he didn't believe in evolution and would oppose gay marriage at the state level.

Welcome to the Republican Party.

But seriously, how is this all that different than the other candidates? All of the Republicans last year at least paid lip service to allowing 'intelligent design' in schools and supporting the 'defense of marriage' crowd regardless of their personal views.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe, but is non-intervention any more radical than supporting pre-emptive action in Iraq, Pakistan or Iran? Both parties to varying extents have endorsed both, which would have been unthinkable just a few decades ago. I would argue a return to a position of neutrality is no more extreme than any of those positions and has far more evidence in support of it (re: blowback).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not really going to say much on this other than that it's obviously not his work (probably Lew Rockwell's). That and the NAACP has vouched for him before.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a fair point, but I would respond that having nothing backing our currency whatsoever is equally if not more problematic. Right now we're basically just coasting on the presumption of interdependence as well as the perceived stability of the dollar, but if the G20 or OPEC are any indication there's no guarantees that will be the case forever. I'd also point to the massive devaluation of the dollar during the '70s as indicative of the rashness of Nixon's decision to completely end the gold standard.

If anything I think we should have a currency based off multiple commodities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even the most committed Keynesians acknowledge that the Federal Reserve's over-expansion of the money supply (60%) was a contributing factor behind the stock boom of the '20s (particularly the early part of the decade) and resulting crash. They might argue that we needed to free up liquidity and that the rate hike they instituted in 1931 was far more of a factor, but you can't really argue that government manipulation wasn't at least somewhat to blame.

In any case, it is possible to have too much of a good thing. If you maintain a 'boom' indefinitely you can grossly distort prices and encourage malinvestment. That's a fact that's now abundantly clear when we look at what occurred between 1998-2003 (arguably longer) so I would not say having less recessions is necessarily good.

[Scam of God]

Hey, Mint? Maybe that's why you should reject candidates until they reject Christian conservatism. A "libertarian" Paul may be, but a fighter for freedom he most certainly is not.

[Mint]

Right, Peter Schiff is a christian conservative. That's why he favors allowing abortion, gay marriage and drug use. Please keep sharing your profound wisdom about who I do or don't support.

[Scam of God]

Right, Peter Schiff is a christian conservative. That's why he favors allowing abortion, gay marriage and drug use. Please keep sharing your profound wisdom about who I do or don't support.

Are you an idiot, or willfully ignoring the fact that my post addressed Ron Paul in particular?

But hey! That's a-okay! I don't want you to ever stop being a fusionist conservative sell-out!

[Mint]

You said 'Maybe that's why you should reject candidates until they reject Christian conservatism.' Seeing that I am not pushing Paul in particular your point is irrelevant and wrong in its implication (re: that I only support people sympathetic to Christian Conservatism).

[Scam of God]

You said 'Maybe that's why you should reject candidates until they reject Christian conservatism.' Seeing that I am not pushing Paul in particular your point is irrelevant and wrong in its implication (re: that I only support people sympathetic to Christian Conservatism).

At least you know how to dodge. That might come in handy.

So you don't support Ron Paul whatsoever?

[Mint]

Of course I support Paul, everyone on that list I would gladly vote for. Now do I think he's the most viable? No, as I said before Schiff is the strongest out of the bunch. Paul's age alone is a huge hinderance even assuming the unbelievably horrible conditions I'm anticipating in this country between now and 2012.

[Scam of God]

Of course I support Paul

So you support Christian Conservatism, as long as it supports your economic interests. Thanks for clarifying what I already knew.

[Mint]

Of course I support Paul

So you support Christian Conservatism, as long as it supports your economic interests. Thanks for clarifying what I already knew.

Paul has some christian conservative social views, yes, but that does not make him one and the same with people like Robertson, Huckabee, etc. If some conservative protestants are willing to oppose the war on drugs, war on terror, etc. then I'm willing to ally with them. The same goes with Liberals to an extent, though obviously few liberals are going to be on board with any significant reduction of the federal government.

[Scam of God]

Of course I support Paul

So you support Christian Conservatism, as long as it supports your economic interests. Thanks for clarifying what I already knew.

Paul has some christian conservative social views, yes, but that does not make him one and the same with people like Robertson, Huckabee, etc. If conservative protestants are willing to oppose the war on drugs, war on terror, etc. then I'm willing to ally with them. The same goes with Liberals to an extent, though obviously few liberals are going to be on board with any significant reduction of the federal government.

Don't lie to me, scumbag. I know that you're not concerned whatsoever with the social - or individual - ramifications of libertarianism; you only want to be relieved of your tax burden. You are, as always, a worthless whore to whoever mouths your interests the loudest.

[Scam of God]

Of course I support Paul

So you support Christian Conservatism, as long as it supports your economic interests. Thanks for clarifying what I already knew.

Paul has some christian conservative social views, yes, but that does not make him one and the same with people like Robertson, Huckabee, etc. If conservative protestants are willing to oppose the war on drugs, war on terror, etc. then I'm willing to ally with them. The same goes with Liberals to an extent, though obviously few liberals are going to be on board with any significant reduction of the federal government.

Don't lie to me, scumbag. I know that you're not concerned whatsoever with the social - or individual - ramifications of libertarianism; you only want to be relieved of your tax burden. You are, as always, a worthless whore to whoever mouths your interests the loudest.

What is more threatening to libertarianism?  A law banning gay sex that isn't enforceable, or a government takeover of the health care system?

Your answer will reveal what side you are really on.

The law banning gay sex, without a doubt. There is no capitalism without personal freedom. Personal freedom is the predicate upon which capitalism is founded.

[Mint]

Of course I support Paul

So you support Christian Conservatism, as long as it supports your economic interests. Thanks for clarifying what I already knew.

Paul has some christian conservative social views, yes, but that does not make him one and the same with people like Robertson, Huckabee, etc. If conservative protestants are willing to oppose the war on drugs, war on terror, etc. then I'm willing to ally with them. The same goes with Liberals to an extent, though obviously few liberals are going to be on board with any significant reduction of the federal government.

Don't lie to me, scumbag. I know that you're not concerned whatsoever with the social - or individual - ramifications of libertarianism; you only want to be relieved of your tax burden. You are, as always, a worthless whore to whoever mouths your interests the loudest.

Right, 'my interests'. What might those be, Professor?

[Scam of God]

Of course I support Paul

So you support Christian Conservatism, as long as it supports your economic interests. Thanks for clarifying what I already knew.

Paul has some christian conservative social views, yes, but that does not make him one and the same with people like Robertson, Huckabee, etc. If conservative protestants are willing to oppose the war on drugs, war on terror, etc. then I'm willing to ally with them. The same goes with Liberals to an extent, though obviously few liberals are going to be on board with any significant reduction of the federal government.

Don't lie to me, scumbag. I know that you're not concerned whatsoever with the social - or individual - ramifications of libertarianism; you only want to be relieved of your tax burden. You are, as always, a worthless whore to whoever mouths your interests the loudest.

Right, 'my interests'. What might those be, Professor?

Uh, your desire, for instance, to see the Fed abolished?

But God forbid anyone criticize your alliances of political convenience. Khristianity uber alles! Uber alles in die Welt!

[Mint]

'Alliances of convenience.' This coming from someone who refers to the Democratic Party as 'we'? Newsflash: any viable movement has allies that might disagree with them on some points. Case in point - I don't particularly care for a lot of the anarchists and hippies at the anti-G20/WTO/etc. protests but I still support the overall idea. It's exactly this sort of idiotic purism and infighting that's allowed both parties' establishments to maintain the stranglehold they have now virtually unchallenged.

[Scam of God]

'Alliances of convenience.' This coming from someone who refers to the Democratic Party as 'we'? Newsflash: any viable movement has allies that might disagree with them on some points. I don't particularly care for a lot of the anarchists and hippies at the anti-G20/WTO/etc. protests but I still support the overall idea. It's exactly this sort of idiotic purism and infighting that's allowed both parties' establishments to maintain the stranglehold they have now virtually unchallenged.

Which is precisely my point: you insist on preserving the "traditional" alliance of libertarianism and social conservatism, while I argue that it is not only useless, but directly harmful to our cause, and that we'd better be served by convincing the social liberals to see our economic point-of-view. Don't project your own follies onto me.

[Mint]

I've said repeatedly I have nothing against trying to get the hippies and disillusioned liberals on board. The problem is they won't generally, for fairly obvious reasons. Even the ones who do view the power structure as the problem rather than just the people running it typically don't support restricting it - pretty much the opposite.

[Scam of God]

I've said repeatedly I have nothing against trying to get the hippies and disillusioned liberals on board. The problem is they won't generally, for fairly obvious reasons. Even the ones who do view the power structure as the problem rather than just the people running it generally don't support restricting it - pretty much the opposite.

And you honestly think it's different with the social conservatives? Really?

Stop lying to yourself and to me. You know that the very next Republican Administration would not only follow the Bush course, but actively increase it on the back of the Obama Administration's unpopularity. Our success does not lie with either that Party, or that Party's philosophical outlook. We need to undertake an effort to reach out to the liberals - to show them our dissatisfaction, and to ask that they make room for us, and let us influence them.

[Scam of God]

Your silence is pretty typifying.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a fair point, but I would respond that having nothing backing our currency whatsoever is equally if not more problematic. Right now we're basically just coasting on the presumption of interdependence as well as the perceived stability of the dollar, but if the G20 or OPEC are any indication there's no guarantees that will be the case forever. I'd also point to the massive devaluation of the dollar during the '70s as indicative of the rashness of Nixon's decision to completely end the gold standard.

Depends on what you mean by the "perceived stability of the dollar". If what you're referring to is the possibility of a currency crisis, I would say this is more of a long term threat and going onto a currency commodity standard would potentially create as many problems as it would solve. Also, what most hard money advocates usually want is really credible government commitment to monetary consistency and restraint. But a hard peg is no more invulnerable to caprices of government change than a floating currency. Just look at what happened to Argentina's hard currency board of the 1990s, or the gold standards of the past. These pegs are just as flimsy as the governments and conditions backing them. Meanwhile, as Volcker demonstrated in 1982, central banks can pursue tight monetary policy without having a currency peg. Ironically, had the Fed been under the control of Congress or the Presidency in 1982, as Ron Paul and some of his supporters seem to want, Volcker's intervention may never have happened. Magic bullet? I think not.

Also, the massive devaluation of the dollar during the '70s was as much a testament to the artificially inflated price the dollar commanded in the '60s under Bretton Woods as anything else. Bretton Woods worked well enough for its time, but it was also essentially a massive ticking time bomb. Had Nixon not abandoned it, not only the United States but the whole world would have been forced into sharply contractionary economic policies, and after the consequences of this, the dollar would have lost its (pegged) reserve currency status anyway.

You believe in free markets; which is more free- a floating currency whose value is determined on the open market, or a government-induced price peg?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly bubbles distort prices and encourage malinvestment ... although you have to define price distortion, and therein lies the 'Lucas critique'.

[Mint]

I've said repeatedly I have nothing against trying to get the hippies and disillusioned liberals on board. The problem is they won't generally, for fairly obvious reasons. Even the ones who do view the power structure as the problem rather than just the people running it generally don't support restricting it - pretty much the opposite.

And you honestly think it's different with the social conservatives? Really?

It can be. You have to remember the backlash to the DHS report awhile ago that specified that veterans, anti abortion protesters, etc. were potential 'threats' just a few months ago. Or how about the '90s? Remember the sympathies a lot of the right (ESPECIALLY a lot of fundamentalists) showed towards the branch davidians, militia movement, etc. and hostility towards Clinton's anti terrorism proposals? And that was just in the recent past, you can look towards the Goldwaterites, segregationists, and anti-New Deal types for other examples of the anti-(federal) government right. Obviously I don't condone all or even most of those views, I'm just pointing out obvious historical realities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Out of this list? Extremely doubtful, otherwise these candidates wouldn't take so many extremely unpopular views. If it's the hacks like Palin, Huckabee, Romney, etc. then of course we'll continue our long national nightmare.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't advocate for either party's outlook. The Republican establishment is intellectually and morally bankrupt and I will never make the mistake for settling for the 'lesser of two evils' again. In fact I think if McCain won we might be conceivably worse off than now because people would probably draw the wrong conclusions from his (likely earlier) and inevitable failure.

[Scam of God]

It can be. You have to remember the backlash to the DHS report awhile ago that specified that veterans, anti abortion protesters, etc. were potential 'threats' just a few months ago. Or how about the '90s? Remember the sympathies a lot of the right (ESPECIALLY a lot of fundamentalists) showed towards the branch davidians, militia movement, etc. and hostility towards Clinton's anti terrorism proposals? And that was just in the recent past, you can look towards the Goldwaterites, segregationists, and anti-New Deal types for other examples of the anti-(federal) government right. Obviously I don't condone all or even most of those views, I'm just pointing out obvious historical realities.

Which I absolutely reject. Merely because the Branch Dividians were opposed to the Federal government doesn't mean I'm their ally; if they controlled the central government, I'd be dead, as both an atheist and an "abortionist" (an ex of mine had one). I'm not about to hop on every hot cock that proclaims itself opposed to the current government simply because you're all lubed up. Our reasons for opposing the government are not at all related.

And why would I want to ally with segregationists? Segregationism is enforced by a (decentralized, local) State; and nanny-statism is nanny-statism, wherever it is practiced.

Incidentally: where were you during the Bush years?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The 9/11 truthers are enough to scare me.

Again, you fear things that might challenge your worldview.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know or care what his positions are on things irrelevant to the presidency of the United States.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. He is in no way, shape, or form an "isolationist".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LMAO, are you serious? China right now could singlehandedly crash our wonderful fiat currency at the drop of the hat.

The commodity the U.S. dollar is based on is trust in government. Shame some people still think that's worth more than gold...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just plain factually incorrect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For banksters and politicians, sure.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LMAO, are you serious? China right now could singlehandedly crash our wonderful fiat currency at the drop of the hat.

And this proves the superiority of a commodity currency how?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any currency issued by any human entity is only going to be as trustworthy as that entity. If you only trust gold, then only transact in gold. Don't own any currency at all. Don't own any notes of any kind. Own only gold.