Ron Paul, my hero.

[AkSaber]

Ron Paul's article explaining the bailouts and economic turmoil makes a lot of sense.

Bailouts will lead to rough economic ride

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a terrible shame this country doesn't have the courage to elect someone like Dr. Paul.

[dead0man]

He is, of course, 100% correct.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He is, of course, 100% correct.

Do you know how Hagel feels on all this?  I know he was against the Econ Stim Pac.

[dead0man]

He is, of course, 100% correct.

Do you know how Hagel feels on all this?  I know he was against the Econ Stim Pac.

I haven't heard, but I'd assume he's against it.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He is, of course, 100% correct.

Do you know how Hagel feels on all this?  I know he was against the Econ Stim Pac.

I haven't heard, but I'd assume he's against it.

Good - I love Hagel.

[Franzl]

Mr. Paul is correct.

[CPT MikeyMike]

He is, of course, 100% correct.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

He is, of course, 100% correct.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Paul is wrong about almost everything. Admittedly it sounds good (especially if that's what you want to hear) and there's a grain or two of truth in places... but overall it's rather like reading the arguments of the most pathetic sort of Marxist. The flaws are the same, even if the argument (and the utopia) is totally different.

[Brandon H]

He is, of course, 100% correct.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Paul is wrong about almost everything. Admittedly it sounds good (especially if that's what you want to hear) and there's a grain or two of truth in places... but overall it's rather like reading the arguments of the most pathetic sort of Marxist. The flaws are the same, even if the argument (and the utopia) is totally different.

He predicted the crumbling of the GSEs years ago.

[CultureKing]

Paul is wrong about almost everything. Admittedly it sounds good (especially if that's what you want to hear) and there's a grain or two of truth in places... but overall it's rather like reading the arguments of the most pathetic sort of Marxist. The flaws are the same, even if the argument (and the utopia) is totally different.

Agreed.

People need to realize that without the bailouts we would likely head towards a much worse recession or even perhaps a depression (you can't just lose such giant finachial institutions without a domino effect to occur).

Thank god Paul will never get anywhere close to the presidency, he's even worse than Bush.

[Earth]

Thank god Paul will never get anywhere close to the presidency, he's even worse than Bush.

Are you sure about this? Paul and Bush, other than their faith (which for the latter seems as contrived as astroturf), are quite dissimilar. I'm no Paulist, but I've heard this exact comment repeated elsewhere, and it holds no water. Take for example their stances on war, the government itself and it's role in our lives, or social issues like drugs and the prison industry. That's what matters, not some fear about an all encompassing corporate control Paul will bring. We seem to have that already.

Democrats have this irrational fear of a libertarian pro-lifer menace who'll unravel Roe vs. Wade, or dismantle welfare. It wouldn't happen since a politician doesn't operate in a vacuum. As much as I can't get behind Paul's views on immigration, or abortion, he's hardly a threat compared to Bush and the neo cons. And the democrats don't seem to mind, at least to me. It's silly to say he'd be worse.

[dead0man]

I've asked this before.  Apparently these guys think that it will be easy to change the bad things neo-cons do and impossible to change things after a libertarian gets power.  Nobody's ever accused the left of having an overabundance of logic.

[OldWeirdAmerica]

Thank god Paul will never get anywhere close to the presidency, he's even worse than Bush.

Are you sure about this? Paul and Bush, other than their faith (which for the latter seems as contrived as astroturf), are quite dissimilar. I'm no Paulist, but I've heard this exact comment repeated elsewhere, and it holds no water. Take for example their stances on war, the government itself and it's role in our lives, or social issues like drugs and the prison industry. That's what matters, not some fear about an all encompassing corporate control Paul will bring. We seem to have that already.

Democrats have this irrational fear of a libertarian pro-lifer menace who'll unravel Roe vs. Wade, or dismantle welfare. It wouldn't happen since a politician doesn't operate in a vacuum. As much as I can't get behind Paul's views on immigration, or abortion, he's hardly a threat compared to Bush and the neo cons. And the democrats don't seem to mind, at least to me. It's silly to say he'd be worse.

I agree that some Democrats and liberals have irrational fears of libertarians. The truth is that Ron Paul is miles away from George W. Bush ideologically. Ron Paul is one of the most anti-war members of Congress, while George W. Bush launched an aggressive war based on lies. Ron Paul is for cutting back spending drastically, while Bush is the biggest spending president since LBJ. Ron Paul is against the criminalization of consensual activity such as drug use. Bush is behind the War on Drugs 100%. Ron Paul is against corporate welfare, while Bush is a corporatist. A Paul administration would not lead to corporate tyranny. Those who think it would are confused about the difference between corporatism and the free-market. President Bush, contrary to the belief of most liberals, has not been an extreme free-market  president. What Bush really is is a corporatist (soft fascist).

And to those who say Ron Paul is worse than Bush or wrong on almost everything, why don't you even bother to explain why you believe he is so bad?

[Хahar 🤔]

I've asked this before.  Apparently these guys think that it will be easy to change the bad things neo-cons do and impossible to change things after a libertarian gets power.  Nobody's ever accused the left of having an overabundance of logic.

Socialists in Europe are having an easy time re-nationalizing things, then, aren't they?

[Firefly]

We've already tried everything for which Paul asks.  It was called the 1920's, and it led directly to the Great Depression.

[Earth]

Could you specify? I don't think we've tried his take on social issues, nor his stance on the federal reserve or income tax, ever.

[Firefly]

Could you specify? I don't think we've tried his take on social issues, nor his stance on the federal reserve or income tax, ever.

Certainly.  First of all, Paul's take on social issues, or anyone else's, is completely irrelevant is to the current economic turmoil.  Second, Paul does not address income taxes in the essay in question.  The only part of your statement that applies to this topic is the "federal reserve" part.  The part that I was specifically referring to was Paul's contention that government intervention in interest rates is what led us to the current crisis.  He suggests that we should leave all interest rates up to the free market.  That's exactly the way it worked pre-Great Depression and is a big reason why that disaster happened.

[Earth]

I wasn't referring to the economic crisis, I was disputing the idea that we've put Paul's ideas into practice. I thought you were referring to Paul's positions overall.

[dead0man]

I've asked this before.  Apparently these guys think that it will be easy to change the bad things neo-cons do and impossible to change things after a libertarian gets power.  Nobody's ever accused the left of having an overabundance of logic.

Socialists in Europe are having an easy time re-nationalizing things, then, aren't they?

And that war in Iraq has been cake to stop heh?

[NDN]

I've asked this before.  Apparently these guys think that it will be easy to change the bad things neo-cons do and impossible to change things after a libertarian gets power.  Nobody's ever accused the left of having an overabundance of logic.

Socialists in Europe are having an easy time re-nationalizing things, then, aren't they?

And that war in Iraq has been cake to stop heh?

And the war on drugs, Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, FCC 'moral guidelines,' military industrial complex, corporate bail outs. But yeah the small government CONservatives in Washington are so scary. All 3 of them.

[Firefly]

I wasn't referring to the economic crisis, I was disputing the idea that we've put Paul's ideas into practice. I thought you were referring to Paul's positions overall.

Ah, yeah, I could have been more specific in my original statement.

[CultureKing]

Thank god Paul will never get anywhere close to the presidency, he's even worse than Bush.

Are you sure about this? Paul and Bush, other than their faith (which for the latter seems as contrived as astroturf), are quite dissimilar. I'm no Paulist, but I've heard this exact comment repeated elsewhere, and it holds no water. Take for example their stances on war, the government itself and it's role in our lives, or social issues like drugs and the prison industry. That's what matters, not some fear about an all encompassing corporate control Paul will bring. We seem to have that already.

Democrats have this irrational fear of a libertarian pro-lifer menace who'll unravel Roe vs. Wade, or dismantle welfare. It wouldn't happen since a politician doesn't operate in a vacuum. As much as I can't get behind Paul's views on immigration, or abortion, he's hardly a threat compared to Bush and the neo cons. And the democrats don't seem to mind, at least to me. It's silly to say he'd be worse.

I agree that some Democrats and liberals have irrational fears of libertarians. The truth is that Ron Paul is miles away from George W. Bush ideologically. Ron Paul is one of the most anti-war members of Congress, while George W. Bush launched an aggressive war based on lies. Ron Paul is for cutting back spending drastically, while Bush is the biggest spending president since LBJ. Ron Paul is against the criminalization of consensual activity such as drug use. Bush is behind the War on Drugs 100%. Ron Paul is against corporate welfare, while Bush is a corporatist. A Paul administration would not lead to corporate tyranny. Those who think it would are confused about the difference between corporatism and the free-market. President Bush, contrary to the belief of most liberals, has not been an extreme free-market  president. What Bush really is is a corporatist (soft fascist).

And to those who say Ron Paul is worse than Bush or wrong on almost everything, why don't you even bother to explain why you believe he is so bad?

I never said that I thought Paul and Bush were simular, I simply said that I would prefer Bush over Paul.
I see the liberatarian mindset as a selfish abandonment of society, basically social darwinism at its worst. America's strength comes from our ability to work together and give those who are struggling a chance to succeed. If you somehow get that mindset with the American people it could lead to disastrous effects. Also conservatives don't want to destroy government, they want to change what it does, and yes it is much easier to change a mission for a certain agency then it is to reestablish one that has been taken out.

[dead0man]

So you'd rather face more pointless wars?