« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Doctor Has Left The Building

By: streiff (Diary)  |  July 12th, 2011 at 12:31 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Ron Paul (R-Mars) has decided to not seek reelection.

LAKE JACKSON — After serving almost 24 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul told The Facts this morning he will not be seeking another term for the District 14 seat.

Paul, 75, will instead focus on his quest for the presidency in 2012.

His resignation, probably caused by a combination of his age and a drastically redrawn district, is more than welcome. Paul’s quixotic fight with the Fed and his political philosophy that seemed more geared towards gulling the maximum number of people into donating to his campaigns have made him a laughing stock.

The only loss produced by Paul’s resignation is that we’ll no longer have the fun of waving Paul’s latest statement in the face of libertarians and watching them imitate a contortionist at a county fair defending its veracity.

Bon voyage, Mr. Paul. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Aaron Gardner

    .

    • acat

      . . .

      • Aaron Gardner

        • mikeymike143

          this is a great day for the republican party and the conservative movement.

    • mikeymike143

      in 2008 ron paul ran in the republican primary for president. and despite all the poll spamming and loud boasting from the paulbots, ron the nt only got 5% of the vote. so that means that 19 OUT OF 20 REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS REJECTED HIM!!!

  • bk

    Yes, I’m just kidding!

  • Finrod

    .

  • Bill S

    .

  • izoneguy

    N/T

  • devereaux

    He was a safe bet to win re-election. He has come a long way in educating many of his fellow Republicans on the dangers of Central Banking. In the Senate Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, and Mike Lee are on board.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/07/3-tea-party-backed-senators-bet-economic-recovery-on-gold/

    The Dollar has lost 95 percent of its value since 1914. And when Nixon closed the gold window in Aug 15, 1971, (40 years ago) the national debt has gone from 400 billion to 14 trillion. Gold restains government and politicians. During the classical gold standard 1880 to 1913 if the American people thought the treasury was inflating they could take their paper and demand gold. During Bretton Woods 1944-1971 if foreign governments thought the FED was inflating they could take their paper and demand gold.

    As James Grant (Grants Interest Rate Letter) wrote in the Washington Post last Friday,

    The golden rule of fiscal discipline

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-golden-rule-of-fiscal-discipline/2011/07/08/gIQAPLRR4H_story.html

    • Christopher Badeaux

      Kind of an arbitrary date, I know, but unlike yours — which appears to relate to a war we did not even join for another three years — mine might even be thematically applicable.

      Just a thought.

      Gold restrains economies. It is deflationary and exacerbates the trough of the business cycle.

      I understand I’m arguing against a religious belief, but at most we’re a Christian nation, not a masochistic one.

      • devereaux

        http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2009/07/10/is-a-deflationary-gold-standard-bad/

        Ask a conservative Republican if they favor central planning in agriculture, manufacturing, high tech, medicine, or the service economy and I gaurantee you’ll get a reply something like this!! Are you nuts!! Then ask them why they favor it with something as importand as money?? What?????

        End legal tender laws and taxation on Gold and Silver. That’s what Mike Lee, Jim DeMint and Rand Paul are moving towards.

        • Christopher Badeaux

          What do you think, exactly, money is?

          And what effect, do you imagine, a deflationary monetary system would have on economic growth?

          • devereaux

            And something way too important to be left to central plannners.

            http://mises.org/daily/3204

            During the 19th century the Western world was on the gold standard and it saw fantastic economic growth. The United States became a first world nation. Yes we had very sharp, but short economic downturns.

          • carolina

            Obviously our fiat $ is NOT.

          • streiff

            Try paying your lawful debts in gold dust or fava beans or whatever other medium Paul and his merry band of imbeciles propose.

            So long as our “fiat $” are required to be accepted for all debts, public and private… that is the law, you know… then it has value, both immediate and stored.

          • e_rowe

            It would be one thing if fiat money could actually win out in a free market. And if you think it would, that’s fine, it’s your right to use it with other people who agree to accept it if you want.

            But to put it under the control of the regime in DC, I don’t see how any conservative could be for that.

          • acat

            Since we *pay* taxes rather than *receiving* government handouts, it’s a matter of paying the government in their fiat money….

            Mew

          • e_rowe

            It’s not just a matter of paying the government in their fiat money. It’s a matter of being required to accept it in other transactions, hence the “this note is legal tender for all debts public and private” bit.

            The irony about what you said is that giving them control over what we’re allowed to use in our transactions with one another effectively makes other forms of taxation superfluous. We’ve given them the power to tax us up to 100% of our wealth just by printing more money. The dollar will almost certainly collapse one day. It’s nearly inevitable. Politicians will keep making decisions based on what’s good for them in the next election, rather than what’s right for the people long term. The debt will keep getting bigger. Unfunded future liabilities will keep getting bigger. The cost of government will continue to outpace the GDP in its growth. And balancing the federal budget won’t even be something to debate anymore. It will be a mathematical impossibility. And the deficit will be made up for with an evergrowing inflation tax. We’ve essentially told the federal government that 100% of our wealth is theirs already. We don’t really own it.

          • acat

            If I loaned you, say, 30 silver coins and you tried to pay me back with dollars, I can and will refuse – at which point you can .. do what, exactly? Sue me and force me to accept funny money?

            Seriously, if you want to trade in silver and gold, I don’t think anyone’s stopping you, provided you make the deal up front. I’ve paid for things with loan of a vehicle, a case of beer, a couple hours labor… it’s called “barter”, and using gold or silver follows the same principle.

            Just sayin’

            Mew

          • e_rowe

            Likewise, even if you and I do agree for me to pay you in gold, the government will arrogate to itself the right to tell us we can’t do that, and that we positively must use its money, as they did to these people:
            http://www.lvrj.com/news/46074037.html

          • acat

            If that’s really the best you’ve got, it’s kind of pathetic.

            How about a case where someone actually wasn’t trying to skip out on paying taxes?

            Mew

          • acat

            is what the income tax is based on, not the “face value” of a gold or silver coin, the actual value.

            Perhaps you recall that several dot-com millionaires went broke because the stock that they were paid in was worth quite a lot – so they owed quite a lot in taxes – when they received it, but was worth next to nothing when they tried to sell….

            I’m still waiting for a cite where a citizen was forced to accept fiat money when he or she had agreed – in a private deal – to accept something else.

            Mew

          • e_rowe

            For your last question, I don’t know about cases, but it is explicitly the law that dollars must be accepted in payment of all debts.

            You might be thinking of people being able to use other things in exchange for goods and services. But for payment of debts, they are not allowed not to accept pay in dollars. And that’s the whole point of legal tender laws.

            If you don’t think that should be the case, then you and I agree and there’s nothing to debate.

          • acat

            The only debts that can only be paid in dollars are tax bills and government fees. For every other debt in your life, it’s your choice to negotiate it in dollars.

            It’s much more convenient since, unless you work for a large multinational, you’re probably paid in dollars, and unless you live near Canada or Mexico, you probably do most of your spending in dollars, but .. that’s your choice.

            You could, for instance, arrange for your paycheck to be used to purchase gold bullion. You would still have the witholdings in dollars, but you’d get gold. Your bank should be able to arrange this for you.

            You could, further, arrange to trade your gold for whatever goods you need.

            As long as you pay your taxes, the government doesn’t enter into the transaction.

            Mew

          • streiff

            of the federal government in the Constitution, yes. BTW, our Revolution was financed by “fiat money.”

            I’d much rather that than someone tell me I have use dog feces or whatever because it isn’t paper.

          • e_rowe

            Coining it is. To coin money is not to create it. Hence the phrase in Article I, Section 16, “no state shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

            But more important than whether or not it’s constitutional is whether or not its right. Natural law trumps everything else. If you don’t have a right to do something (such as forcing me to accept payment in a form I don’t agree to), then you can’t acquire that right just by writing it in a constitution.

          • streiff

            no one “makes” you do anything. Go off the grid. Live by barter. Send some fresh tomatoes to your ISP to get internet access.

            BTW, to believe your rather crabbed interpretation of the Constitution I have to believe that paper money hasn’t always been issued by the federal government. As that isn’t the case, and it isn’t the case with any government in existence since the 17th century, I choose to use history as my guide.

          • e_rowe

            If you’re proposing a system where nobody makes us take anything in our transactions with one another, then I’m in full agreement with you. But that’s precisely what Ron Paul’s position is. And I thought your point was that he’s crazy.

            Also, paper money and gold and silver aren’t mutually exclusive. If a piece of paper is a note that can be exchanged for some amount of gold or silver, then the two things are perfectly compatible.

            If you’re really interested in letting history guide you (and I’ll pretend to believe you are for the sake of argument), then you might want to read this great book about an episode in history that illustrates precisely what we’re debating here:
            http://www.amazon.com/Good-Money-Birmingham-Beginnings-1775-1821/dp/0472116312/

            That is, if you can stomach the way the author succumbs to the temptation to portray freedom as though it’s a good thing.

          • streiff

            be sure to tell us how it works out for you.

          • e_rowe

            then why are you involved in Red State at all?

          • acat

            His position is that nobody should be allowed to use “fiat money”.

            That’s not the same as “nobody makes us take anything in our transactions with one another”.

            In the case of the latter, if I choose to accept fiat money, I choose the consequences. In the case of the former, the “loony” position, I no longer have the choice to accept fiat money because it will no longer exist.

            I trust you see how the Ron Paul position is actually *more* limiting of my liberty, right?

            Mew

          • e_rowe

            If you’re going to charge me with selective quotation, then you ought to be able to provide an actual in context quote for what you think his position is.

            You can read the text of the current version of his Free Competition in Currency Act on thomas.gov. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t include anything that would prohibit you and another party from using a fiat currency if you want to.

          • acat

            then how am I to use it?

            Mew

          • e_rowe

            If you want to use Euros, or yen, or dollars, or any other fiat money, then that would be between you and whomever else wanted to do that. If no such money existed, then I guess you’d either be out of luck, or you’d have to find enough people who want to use fiat money to be able to create one yourselves. But I don’t see what that has to do with Ron Paul’s position.

            Just because you have the right to use fiat money doesn’t mean you have the right to make everyone else use it.

          • acat

            That is, it removes the right from me by .. government fiat.

            Mew

          • e_rowe

            You accused me of selectively quoting him. Yet you keep repeating this claim about what you think his position is without showing me any evidence.

            I don’t believe that he would deny you the right to use fiat money.

            Let me ask you this. If I were to propose a monetary free market, where we would all be free to accept or not accept whatever we want as money, whether it be fiat currency or commodities or anything else as determined between us and the parties with whom we do business, would you support that?

          • acat

            with more than a handful of devils in the details, just as I think of it.

            The answer is no. Given the complexity of our economy, we need a universal medium of exchange. Not a mandatory one – people should be able to be paid in a form they agree to – but a sufficiently universal “fiat” fits the bill.

            Your way would balloon the complexity – if the city want to be paid in gold for their services, and the state want their taxes to be paid in some state-specific fiat currency that nobody else accepts, and the druggist will only accept drachmas because he’s Greek, etc. etc. The more complex the system, the more expensive… so that would only lead to higher prices and, eventually, another fiat currency.

            Mew

          • e_rowe

            And if you want to make a law saying that my state, city, and druggist, all have to accept some fiat currency, then you’re back to it being a mandatory one.

            I have a higher appreciation of the free market to simplify itself without being centrally managed than you do. We didn’t need the government to tell us to use VHS tapes, rather than beta. And we don’t need them to control our currency either. Take away the central manager and let the free market reign, and things would only get better in every way, including in ways that neither you nor I can imagine.

          • acat

            And the only business that stands to gain from removing fiat currency without replacing it with another federally mandated standard is Currency Exchange.

            Without a common standard – and the banks and governments don’t really want a standard, not if they can make a buck exchanging other currencies for theirs – every household has to keep on hand enough of the new currencies to pay the bills.

            As for reverting to the gold standard, as has been repeatedly pointed out, that’s not an improvement, it’s an exchange of one set of problems for another set… and I prefer the current set.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            Rules of the road laws are the purpose behind the interstate commerce clause. Moreover, the government has the right to demand payment in a particular currency. Everyone else should be free to transact using whatever currency they please, and courts should enforce contracts,

            A contract in non-US currency is just another way to describe a freely entered into exchange of value, whether it is gold for car, copper for a dry cleaned shirt, or a diamond ring for legal services.

            There will always be a bit of “fiat” in our currency unless banks are required to have 100% of the monies on hand, in which case banks can’t lend any money out.

          • devereaux

            For the life of me I can’t see how the Paul plan would deny you the right to use FIAT money.

          • acat

            This is not rocket science. This is not even intro-to-physics.

            Once we’re back on the gold standard, there’s no more fiat money to be used.

            So .. I can’t use it.

            Mew

          • devereaux

            In a market economy somethings do go out of business. Gold and silver might put the FED out of business . . Just like the auto put the horse and buggy industry out of business. Or cassettes put 8 tracks out of business.

            But if FED notes can’t compete then maybe it is time they go out of business. There will still be plenty of them in circulation for many years.

            If FED notes do go away there will still be plenty of paper money. Gold and silver certificates. I like to go to coin shows and buy old gold certificates from the 1920s.

          • acat

            Seriously.

            If gold and silver – in physical form – are so superior, then why did the Fed’s fiat money displace them?

            You can’t claim, on one paw, that gold and silver are superior without acknowledging that .. historically .. they’re not.

            Mew

          • devereaux

            Gold hasn’t circulated in the economy since 1933 when FDR took everyones gold. The last silver dollar minted for circulation was 1935.

            When Nixon closed the Gold window in 1971 only foreign government that held our treasury instruments could demand gold.

            I’m not sure, but I don’t think Americans could buy gold coins until Reagan signed into law the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985.

            The new 1oz Gold Eagles had a face value of 50 dollars. Legal tender. But who is going to take coin that in 1986 was worth around 400 dollars and buy 50 dollars worth of good services.

            Now if the country did what Utah is doing and make gold legal tender at market value then gold and silver probably would put the FED out of business.

          • acat

            I didn’t say “when did the fed stop and restart minting gold and silver coins”.

            I said “why didn’t gold and silver replace fiat dollars”.

            Why didn’t people start carrying around gold and silver and trade a couple steaks from the butcher for a setting of silverware, or a handful of gold rings for a new car?

            If gold and silver have an inherent value, then .. why didn’t people reject the fiat dollars and just revert to the actual metal?

            Mew

          • devereaux

            The government did.

          • acat

            I grow tired of your bait-and-switch.

            So everyone’s required to “render unto caesar” in fiat-dollars. What does that have to do with why nobody – *Nobody* – choses to pay for things with gold or silver.

            Mew

          • devereaux

            Nice and simple. I’m holding a 1999 Gold Eagle in my hand right now. On the back it says

            1oz Fine Gold 50 Dollars.

            I could take my Gold Eagle to the grocery store and buy 50 dollars of food with it. The cashier if he/she had any sense would take it and then take 50 dollars out of his/her pocket and take the gold eagle home. Then he/she could take the coin to a gold dealer and get 1658.00 dollars for it. (Price at 4pm New York)

            The United States government says that Gold Eagle has a face value of 50 dollars. And that’s all anyone would be able to buy at the local grocery. Anyting else is illegal.

          • acat

            Do you pay list price for cars too?

            Why the pock would you accept only $50? Just because the face value says $50 ? That’s taking the law way too seriously, to the point where it’s now incorrect, only to prove you’re harmed by it.

            You’re still not answering my question, by the way – I did not mention coinage. I mentioned precious metals. As in rings, necklaces, bracelets, etc. Why don’t people trade those for what they need more often?

            Mew

          • e_rowe

            Forcing others to accept it without their consent is not.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            But I guess that’s too much common sense for a Paultard.

          • e_rowe

            That’s your position?

            That you have the right to tell other people they can’t lend anybody anything?

            Where did you get that right?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            If you want to come crying like a baby to the government to enforce your debts, then shut up and take it like a man when the government determines how your debts will be paid.

            Man up. Show some personal responsibility for once in your life.

          • e_rowe

            I disagree with you on what a man is.

            I see a man as the kind of person who will pledge his life, fortune, and sacred honor to the upholding of the principle that the only just powers any government can have are those it obtains by the consent of the governed.

            If I want to enter contracts with other free people, then it’s our right to determine the terms of that contract between us, including what is and is not to be accepted as payment of debts.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Legal Tender only matters if you bring government into your private business affairs.

          • e_rowe

            If you’ve finally come around to agreeing with that, then welcome to the club.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You can enter into agreements without asking for government enforcement NOW. Nobody makes you use government to collect debts.

            So quit your whining and go live in your gold fantasyland. Leave the rest of us in objective reality.

          • e_rowe

            So like, if I want to open up a business where I pay my employees less than minimum wage, and maintain conditions that do not match the standards of OSHA or the EPA or any other regulatory arm of the government, and if I don’t withhold taxes from them,, or pay any taxes myself, you think I’m free to do all that?

            And I’m the one who’s not in objective reality?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            But I guess you Paultards have problems with mental focus.

          • aesthete

            a whole lot of government interference to maintain (recoinage programs, for instance, being a process that the early bureaucracies of Europe occupied themselves with), and quite a bit of international treaty-making, as well (to sort out how much gold went to whom, fixed exchange rates, etc). Free banking is probably what you’re thinking of.

          • devereaux

            I am. But most people don’t understand the concept.

          • streiff

            nt.

  • blooch

    …

    • izoneguy

      Someone like Grayson would not be welcome and we would give him the Texas boot licktey split.

    • Scope

      http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/12/back-in-the-game-grayson-discusses-his-run-gop-politics-and-chris-christie/

  • kowalski

    But in the meantime I will just close my eyes and nod my head in complete agreement. Thank you, Streiff.

  • Common_Cents

    We should be engaging RP followers to show them the ways of true conservatism and how its better to join forces rather than be in opposition. The enemy is the other way folks!

    • streiff

      followers or Lyndon LarRouche followers.

      Idiots are like a cancer. Having a few of them is dangerous. A lot of them is fatal. We don’t need RP followers. They are welcome to vote for our candidates on election day but accommodating them and their bizarre little world view isn’t good for conservatism or for the GOP.

      • Common_Cents

        not accommodating them. We need a big tent and all voters aren’t going to be pure. We need to focus on the most pure candidates, not pure voters. Or we’ll be a lonely group stuck with another 4 yrs of obama.

        • acat

          Ron Paul supporters (by whom I mean the ones with the Revolution! bumper stickers still on their cars after the primary ended) voted for McCain?

          I’m not interested in purity of voters, nor am I streiff – obviously – but .. he raises a valid point. Are Ron Paul’s supporters likely to be “impure” votes for someone else, or are they likely to stay home and toke up*?

          Mew

          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .
          .

          * for all his talk about being a libertarian, a good many of Ron Paul’s supporters are libertines .. totally different species.

          • Common_Cents

            Don’t have to spend too much energy engaging them, nor should we spend energy alienating them either. Playing who’s a purer conservative than a RSer is not a winning strategy, expending energy to alienate whatever groups that aren’t mostly aligned.

            If there is a new group potential customers that may come to my store and buy from me, I’m not gonna go out of my way to reject them if I think they might buy my product (or pull a lever for my side) because I disagree with them.

            There is a lot of potential energy in that group that could be harnessed in a positive way. Going out of your way to reject it will do no good.

            That simple.

          • acat

            It is not on me to prove the value of the outreach, that goes to you since you’re proposing it.

            As for your question, I cite John Ziegler’s survey on the subject – a rather large percentage voted for him because it was historical … first black president. I do not expect the bulk of the people motivated by that particular driver to repeat.

            Mew

          • gpclaw

            I think many Ron Paul supporters are a lock to vote for people in the Jim DeMint, Mike Lee and Rand Paul mold.

            I’m not trying to insinuate that these three are comparable to Ron Paul, but they have shown to be strong advocates of limited government, which is an area I feel many Ron Paul supporters are in agreement with.

            Of course, there are the Ron Paul supporters who just supported him because of his anti military stance, and because they want to smoke pot. I guess if Conservatives could convince them that liberal policies drive up the cost of Cheetos and Ho-Ho’s, then there may be some hope.

        • streiff

          like I said, they are welcome to vote for our candidates but letting people who don’t believe in conservatism into the tent for the purpose of selecting candidates, etc is just counterproductive. That’s why we don’t like open primaries.

          BTW, this isn’t a question of purity. It is a question of inviting people into your “tent” who want to burn the tent down.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Independents are the fertile ground.

    • BigRedConservative

      Trying to re-educate these wacko half-baked idiots . The amount of pandering we’ll have to make doesn’t tally with the benefits of bringing them back in the fold. This time, the prodigal sons aren’t getting a second chance. It’s like teaching cannibals about the wonders of vegetarianism. You might be speaking complete sense, but they aren’t going to listen.

      • mikeymike143

        and i say paulbots are much more likely to be found at a code pink rally or living in their parents basement and spamming presidential internet polls than they are to be found doing anything constructive for the conservative movement,

        in my many dealings with them, i have found them to be anti social nutjobs and you are not going to get them ”into the fold” unless you throw them a bone like agreeing that ”9-11 was an inside job” or some kind of wacky conspiracy nonsense. you have a better chance of getting a pig to play the piano then you do getting one of these wackos to understand that the government isn’t kidnapping people and secretly shipping them to FEMA camps that are being guarded by black helicopters.

        and the unrealistic theory of reaching out to everybody in some kind of ”big tent” strategy simply does not work in real life. that’s what the republicans tried in 2008 and all it did was elect RINO’s and turn off the conservative base.

        i am personally hoping that when ron paul goes away next year his paulbots go away too. they are just as likely to vote for a democrat as a republican because they are so anti war and anti israel. so unless we want the republican party to adopt the same type of failed ”blame big bad america” foreign policy that jimmy carter had, let’s not open our doors to a small fringe group that would do much more harm than good to our movement.

        • funwithknives

          that you express a belief more than a little prevelant in some discussion lines and rallies I attend. The term “paulbots” and your hallucinatory superiority complex do you in, as a Citizen without imagination or vision. In ALL these supposed inferiors, you think no allies exist? All persons of your “description” fit your narrow view? Views and ideas, never change over time? Speaking of which, Ron Paul has been a Libertarian far longer than “our movement’ has been extant, plus “our movement” AND the GOP have had no compunctions about appropriating Libertarian(and Ron’s) ideas for decades. (or a Couple-a years, in your case) Mikey, if you just got on the bus , take it from a long rider: It’s already been said and done,WAAAY before you got here. Even if you do not respect Ron Paul and his ilk, at least realize it started somewhere, before you EVER become a TEA Party member. I always considered Demonization and Infantilism a Progressive trait. I learn Sumpin’ new EVERY DAY! Remember MM143: “The Enemy of My Enemy, IS MY Friend”and “Perfection is The Enemy of THE GOOD”. Freedom and Liberty to you and yours.

          • mikeymike143

            where it started. what matters is that america has soundly rejected your candidate and his left/libertarian wackiness. why do i say that?

            1. out of the over 500 seats that were up for grabs in the house, the senate, and the governors mansion last november, how many did your libertarian party win? after all, the tea party movement was out in full force last election. the answer is…… ZERO. so where is this supposed tea party support for your ideas? LOL

            2. ron ”the nt” paul ran in the republican presidential primary for president in 2008. he got 5% of the vote. that means 19 OUT OF 20 REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS REJECTED PAUL!! so i would say the numbers prove that republicans have rejected paul’s ideas, not incorporated them.

            oh, you earn respect in the political arena by having success, not by being around forever and having a track record of complete failure. and by the way, spamming presidential internet polls does NOT count as success in the real world.

            but the one thing you did say that was correct, is that i do have a lack of respect for ron paul and his ilk. and if you read the comments from the other posters, you will see this is the far and away the majority opinion of the people on this site. nt

          • funwithknives

            did I ever claim I supported Ron Paul. Gimme Perry or Herman, as a choice. No backtracking, just FACT. Insofar as Tea Party not utilizing Libertarian ideas I suggest you archive their planks going back to the 90′s & you will discover exactly what I stated: it’s all been said already, through our recent history and it got Nowhere. We marginalized ourselves(aka, Militias and the like) and learned lessons because of it. Libertarian Support for ideas is apparent if you wish to look but you obviously, by your own words want to confine your “allies ” to a very narrow spectrum of Americans. Not all Libertarians are “paulbots” but it’s intellectually easier to invent disdain, as you so amply show. Using your 500 seat Paragraph (ITEM# ONE) is a straw man as few if any libertatian Candidates affiliated with TEA Parties, and why would they have? The two overall views do not walk in lockstep, as a cursory examination would have shown. What was THAT POINT supposed to prove? Regarding Item #Two, Paul ran and won a number of terms in Congress as a Republican, did he Not? Do all those wins indicate REJECTION to you? The GOP ran McCain in ’08 as a success story ? Dole in ’96? GHWB in ’02? Winning on a Track record? Seriously? You are completely mistaken about where I get any info as I never “Spam” internet polls, you simply lump who you disagree with into a box of your own making and call it REJECTED. You seek cover by claiming ” Most Everyone else does it”, and Call it Good. Laughing Out Loud in a veil of your own SMUG will not get Barry out of office, and just might keep him there. There are more closet libertarians than you anticipate in Moderate Circles, but your narrowness of vision, keeps you from seeing allies. I have often heard that a third party vote is “just wasting” same. Drive away potential friends and where will they go? Third party, and for a reason. Voting is a statement of belief, and they WILL BELIEVE they had no where else to “SEEK REDRESS”. In other words, FEWER NUMBERS to oust BHO. WHY, when the numbers are GOING to be SO CLOSE, do many on this line wish to Demonize possible assistance? Is working on a way to forge Commonality, too hard or unseeming? You will NEVER meet more loyal,hard working allies, as I know from 18 years experience. Used to working in a hostile environment, with few resources. But they don’t fit YOUR WorldView,and are of Little ConseQuence. I’d say it’s a Funny Way to WIN, but then I’m in your Sh–ty little Box, right?

          • acat

            Gets your point across much better.

            Mew

          • Scope

            is mostly correct in what he has said. Shortly after the 08 elections, Paul started his Campaign for Liberty organization, whose stated and written goals were to “takeover” the GOP, and to change it into Paul’s political visions. They claimed that the Republican party would be the easiest to overtake because the Republicans “don’t want to get their hands dirty.” I would agree that they are hard working and dedicated workers, but they direct their energies into the politics of personal destruction against any opponents in primaries. They are currently working very very hard to destroy any presidential candidate that they think can overtake their guy Ron Paul, and with Paul stuck in a 5-7% polling number, many are accomplishing that. There is alot of interest in Perry right now, and every article I read, that allows comments, they are like flys on poop, screaming Bildeberg, and every other accusation against him they can get away with, true or not. The liberals are doing the same, but the Paulies use the same language, over and over, and you can tell who they are. They spend more time bashing other candidates than they do talking up their guy. That is not constructive, and is actually the actions of liberals rather than conservatives. There is a big difference between “vetting” a candidate, and trying to destroy them.

            During the 2010 elections, one of the Campaign for Liberty sites had a listing of all of the candidates they considered “qualified Paul candidates.” Yes, those candidates did have to complete an application, be approved, and had to sign a pledge that they would uphold their platform, including that they agreed to non-interventionist foreign policy positions. They all ran as Republicans. Mikey is correct, very very few of them won their primaries. We currently have a Paul type candidate in VA running against Tim Kaine, who was a former VA Gov., and until recently the head of the DNC. She cannot get out of the low single digits in polling while another former Republican Governor is polling in the 60% range, and is beating Kaine. But this chick is doing everything she can to tear down the frontrunner, and has no more of a campaign than to knock, disparage, call a liar of, and trash the frontrunner. She has no policy positions, experience, or money. She hasn’t raised hardly any money. Here we are again with the politics of personal destruction. That’s what they do.

            To borrow a comment from above somewhere, anyone and everyone is welcome to vote for our candidate, and to come under the tent, but please don’t enter if your goal is to burn the tent down. That is also how I see the Paul supporters or followers.

          • funwithknives

            was the lumping of Libertarians (Large and small ‘L’) in with Paul supporters. Broad brush attempts at demonization gets you no more support. Just as Conservatives have their outliers, Libertarians are no different. We all do not walk in lockstep with Paul, or his seemingly disdained (here, anyway) followers. I and many like me ,as we got older and more experienced , burned out, went away, or re-evaluated as we so chose. I have chosen to work for The Candidate, and not A Party. I have often been asked to be a GOP Precinct Delegate/Captain locally(S/E Michigan) but having volunteered for like positions in the past I know where that leads: Me doing 90% and all others mouthing platitudes and posturing,while doing Zilch. Denigrating Libertarian contributions (IE: CATO, Sheldon Richman, Mackinaw Center,FEE, etc.)either by deletion or attack seemed to me to be “forgetful” to say the least, and ignorant/self-serving at the far end. My main point was that this had been done,way before TEA Parties were ever thought of, (Like, 1995) and few listened. When so many Oxes got gored , all of a sudden Limited-Government and Gadsden was everywhere. The point was we got nowhere without allies and excusion/purity/litmus testing was the main reason. I saw same here and frankly, did not believe my lyin’ eyes. But in looking over these 120 +/- comments, I realize that Some will never deviate, as is the way of the process. Too bad ,for everyone concerned. WE are going to need every body possible to Boot Barry and to just disregard possible allies out of hand (at least at my first glance) flies in the face of history,Political and Military. TOO BAD for Me and Mine, HUH? Freedom and Liberty to all of you reading This .

  • kowalski

    One big problem with using gold as the basis for your currency is the fact that in the entire history of gold production in the world, the total amount of gold that has *ever* been produced – by the entire human race into antiquity – would form a cube approximately 70 feet on a side.

    Less than 70 feet x 70 feet x 70 feet of Gold is all we’ve ever produced. And that amount is rising rapidly, which means the value per cubic centimeter is decreasing rapidly.

    What if, tomorrow, someone finds a source of gold that quadruples that tiny little cube (which could probably be seen from Google Earth now, but it would only have a slightly bigger “footprint” than most large estates). ???

    Here is a hint: if you base your currency on a commodity like that, the most important thing in the world is to stop discovering any more of it. That’s not happening. In fact, more gold is being discovered at a faster rate than at any time in history. You don’t want to base the value of your money on something like that. You wouldn’t want someone to come along all of a sudden and quadruple the amount in the world, particularly when it’s really such a small volume in the scheme of things.

    Most people don’t realize this but it is true. The total amount of gold that has ever been produced is about 160 thousand metric tons which would form a cube roughly 67.5 feet on a side. Somewhere in the vicinity of 8,500 cubic meters. That’s it! You could put it bang at the 50 yard line during the Superbowl in the Astrodome and still play a pretty decent game of football around it.

    And this doesn’t even really begin to talk about the rest of the ridiculousness.

    Gold is best viewed as a tradable asset that has market value based on what people think it’s worth. It’s a dumb thing to base a currency on. .

    • kowalski

      But chasing after the gold is something people should be wary of, and that’s the point. I’m with Bernanke. I don’t know whether they could have worked Bernanke into the song, though ;) .

      • kowalski

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPOr7S5w2o&feature=related

    • devereaux

      Gold has been used as money for five thousand years. There is more than enough gold.

      That aside the beauty of a free market monetary system is that if there isn’t enough gold then silver, copper and platinum would come into play. Up till 1964 our dimes, quarters, and half dollars were silver.

      • kowalski

        The only thing that would do is make it much harder for people in any given circumstance to decide what the value of the money they’ve just paid was “worth” it. Think about what happens when people pay in Canadian or other coins.

        A free market monetary system like the one you’re describing would collapse in a few months because nobody would know what the value of their “currency” is.

        Oh, you have a silver nickel from Nebraska? What’s that worth in Georgia? A platinum quarter?

        Up until 1964 most people in the United States also accepted racial segregation. That doesn’t mean it was right.

        • kowalski

          I can see the guy in New Jersey at the convience store at the intersection of I-95 and I-9 trying to tally up the register at night..

          “Let’s see. I’ve got 32 Nebraska Silver Nickels, 104 New Jersey Copper Dimes, 3 North Dakota Platinum Dollars, 6 Texas Gold Half Dollars, 183 dollars in paper U.S. currency, 9 bucks in CanAalloy Aluminum quarters, 5320 tin Rupees, and 65 Pounds of Nigerian OilStone, and two Silver Eagles. What’s the sales tax on that?”

          • devereaux

            Would be defined in weight in a free market monetary system. The market would set value. Over time I suspect the value would become very stable.

            I guess you prefered a very secret(Never has had a full audit) bank with a printing press deciding what interest rates are going to be. I’m not sure of the exact number, but since the housing bubble burst Bernanke has created about 4 trillion dollars with the click of a button. That’s capitalism???

            In 1913 twenty dollars would buy you a one night stay in some of the finest Hotels in New York city. Today you might be able to stay at the YMCA for twenty dollars. But in 1913 you cold take that twenty dollars to a bank and exchange if for an ounce of gold. A twenty dollar gold piece. And today on July 14, 2011 that twenty dollar gold piece would sell for close to 2000 dollars which will get you a one night stay at some of the finest Hotels in New York City.

            Paper is great medium of exchange, but a horrible store of value.

      • streiff

        there is only enough gold to support a fraction of the global GDP. Either you want to return to the political controversies on coinage rates of the 1890s or you don’t.

        Why does copper have value when paper doesn’t? Just curious.

        • devereaux

          Money conforms to the law of supply and demand just like any other good. So long as no one ( the state) is preventing prices from dropping, the particular supply of money doesn’t really matter.

          Why does copper have value?? You have to dig for it. Right now there is a huge problem in the country with copper thieves. It is getting out of control. Air conditioning at public schools are being stripped clean because of copper. I don’t think they’re breaking in to steel paper and ink.

          http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/13/us-metals-copper-theft-idUSTRE76C4OB20110713

          • streiff

            the supply of gold, for instance, is finite the number of people and the goods and services they produce is constantly expanding. Even the densest Paultard should be able to figure out that when you create a company you increase the number of dollars of GDP. Gold simply can’t keep pace with that in anything other than an environment of periodic devaluation. This is what Chris was alluding to up thread.

            I dig for earthworms, too. They, also, have a value if I’m a fisherman. Why don’t we use coal? What happens when technology obsoletes copper wire, which is happening now? Are your copper coins still a “store of value” or do you convert them to fiber optic cable? Theft is hardly proof of “store of value” http://bit.ly/pD0hSr in your case the copper is being stolen for resale as scrap. http://bit.ly/n18HET

            The use of metals as a medium of exchange is a holdover from a primitive era, for which it is well suited. Pretending that environment exists today or that creating it would be beneficial is simply an exercise in self beclowning..

          • devereaux

            There Isn?t Enough Gold

            http://the-classic-liberal.com/myth-quantity-gold/

            Over history fiat currencies have alwas collapsed. Books made from paper will soon become primative with IPADS and Kindle.

            You have to dig lots harder for copper than you do for earthworms. Copper has many industrial uses. It is great in Air conditioning for example.

          • acat

            and that became economically non-feasible well before PEX started replacing copper in plumbing …

            Please try again.

            The value isn’t in the paper, the value is in what you can trade the paper for.

            Mew

          • devereaux

            So this epidemic of copper thieves can be expalined as??

          • acat

            Which is, by the way, beside the point.

            If money is not tied to any finite thing, then the money no longer functions as a store of value. Instead, it’s a proxy that can be exchanged for other things – gold, copper, real estate, jelly babies, that are stores of value.

            If even a cat can see this, I remain surprised that others cannot.

            Mew

          • streiff

            of periodic depression and deflation. Nice to see a “classic liberal” own up to the boneheaded results of their policy. BTW, your “myth” is a fraud because the amount of gold is finite and has been since the creation of the Earth. Arguing you can change the value of the gold to create more of it is just nonsense.

            We did this in the 19th century. We stopped doing it because it didn’t work, It demonstrably, historically didn’t work. Please stop acting like history started when you graduated from high school.

            The fact is that so long as you have to use paper currency to pay your taxes and the government requires that currency legal tender then paper is worth exactly the same as gold. In fact, it is worth more because you can’t use gold to register your car unless it is minted into coins worth the same as paper or the same denomination.

            Always collapsed? When did the Pound Sterling collapse? Or the US Dollar? Or the Deutsche Mark?

            Metal currencies have always been subject to debasement which is no different than printing paper money.

          • devereaux

            Nothing could be done overnight. The first thing that needs to be done is end legal tender laws. Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul are moving in this direction.

            If it happens then banks for example could start issuing gold and silver coins under penalty of fraud……. weight and purity.

            These coins we be messured in weight grams. No one would be forced to take them, but say Alvins Mercedes dealership wanted to take (53) 1 ounce gold coins for their shiny new 80 thousand dollar Mercedes, what would be the problem? Then if Alvin wanted to exchange those coins for paper he would just take them to the bank that issued them. Or any other bank that is issuing gold and silver coins.

            Over time gold and silver would circulate more and more in the economy. Prices would adjust to this. There would be a price for government money and then a price for private gold and silver.

            This would end the government monopoly in money. Centrally planned money.

            The dollar has only been on its own for 40 years. Give it more time. Ben Bernanke is doing everything in his power to insure that it does collapse.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            …

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Maybe if you went to school, kid, you’d know what legal tender means.

          • devereaux

            I’m 68 years old

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You should know that today, anyone who wanted to could sell a car for gold. Legal Tender refers to debts and taxes.

            The fact is, people don’t want to deal with gold directly for the most part, because it’s stupid to.

            Money was invented for a reason. It’s more convenient for a modern civilized society.

          • devereaux

            Not worth a Dollar

            Crucially, Utah?s law assesses gold and silver at market value ? not face value. Thus, as the New York Times?s William Yardley explains, ?while the one-ounce American Eagle coin produced by the Mint says ?One Dollar,? it is actually worth more like $38 based on the current price of silver.? An ounce of gold, meanwhile, is worth over $1,500.

            http://www.thegoldstandardnow.com/featured-articles/549-not-worth-a-dollar

          • streiff

            but a couple of days ago Utah was not the United States. No one cares what Utah is doing but based on your grotesque misrepresentations thus far I really doubt you can waltz into DMV with your $1 gold coin, scale, and conversion tables and get your car registered.

          • devereaux

            A United States Mint 1 ounce Gold Eagle or Buffalo has a face value of 50 dollars. Right now on the market the Gold Eagle and Buffalo are trading at 1670.00

            http://www.blanchardonline.com/market_charts/

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            back when they are about $800. Wish I would have had the cash to buy more.

            I wont buy any now unless we have a big dip in prices due to some government dumping a bunch. I believe that gold will top out around $1800-1850 and oz.

          • streiff

            first, the bill you cite doesn’t say what you say it does.

            The U.S. Senate legislation simply states that “gold and silver coins declared legal tender by the federal government or any state government shall not be subject to taxation.”

            This doesn’t give anyone the authority to issue dollar denominated coins and it specifically requires Congress to recognize these coins as legal tender.

            The point you are missing is that there wouldn’t be two price tiers as “government money” would be the official currency and as the metal coins would be denominated in a dollar value.

            The Pound has been issued in paper form since the 1690s.

          • JSobieski

            I don’t see a lot of cash transactions from where I sit. Everything is credit cards, debit cards, PAYPAL, an occassional check, etc.

            The use of virtual/cyber payment mechanisms does complicate the use of private currency quite a bit. One could argue that fiat currency makes sense when you are dealing with virtual payment mechanisms.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            What if, for instance, Paypal, which holds at any one time many billions of dollars in electronic form, decided to play the fractional reserve game just like banks do.

            They could literally create money out of thin electrons, Since they only need a small fraction of those deposits on any given day.

            Of course the government would shut them down, but shouldn’t they have the right? As long as people knew that there was some risk to their small Paypal accounts?

          • devereaux

            Debit cards and checking accounts could easily be setup for banks that issues private gold and silver. Act the same way banks do right now. .

          • JSobieski

            what stops the “fractional reserve” game for virtual gold? JKyle’s point is a valid one (although I am applying it differently).

            The benefit of using gold (or some other commodity) as currency is that it actually physically exists. If transactions using such currency can exist without an actual tie to the commodity, how does that help?

            Is a fiat currency any better if its PAYPAL creating it?

          • devereaux

            What you’re talking about. What I’m talking about is what’s going to happen in Utah.

            People will be able to go to banks that are participating and deposit their gold. It will be weighed and valued at market price. No the phony 50 dollar face value. When businesses decide they would like to participate and take gold in payment, people with gold deposited will be able to use Gold Debit cards to make purchases. Or if people actually want to use gold coins.

            Businesses that are taking gold as payment will either setup gold accounts or take their gold and exchange it for paper at participating banks.

            There are 12-15 other states looking at what Utah did. If more and more start passing laws similar to Utah the FEDs might step in and challenge the states and it will end up in the courts. I really don’t see how the states could lose. After all right there in the United States Constitution

            Article I, section 10

            No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

            Utah isn’t asking that only gold and silver coin be tender in payment of debts. They’re only asking if people want to use gold and silver.

            Rethinking Utah’s monetary policy

            http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700148455/Rethinking-Utahs-monetary-policy.html?pg=1

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Is there anyone else left in the clown car? I really hate when the circus leaves town.

    • ATG

      although he’s not that amusing, wasn’t there an evil clown character in some hack movie? Memory fails me atm…

      • Sirithil

        …Pennywise the Clown from Stephen King’s “IT”.

        Though Pennywise has nothing on this president.

        • ATG

          And that was one evil clown, Thanks for filling in my blank!

          Time for some photoshop work…

    • e_rowe

      There are still a handful of right wingers in Congress: Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jim Demint, Justin Amash, Jeff Flake, Michelle Bachmann, and some others.

      • Marcus_Traianus

        You will have to point out the glorious “right wing” statements from any of that group comparable to Ron Paul.

        I would hardly count any of that liege in a potential “Kook Caucus”.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    You and others are going to miss him, mark my words, because despite his sometimes kookiness he actually stood against the power of a overweening government, something that many so called conservatives often have a hard time doing.

    And his attacks on the Federal Reserve are going to picked up by someone else and continued because the Fed has too much power and is unaccountable. And Bernanke does not know what the hell he is doing.

    • streiff

      Paul was fraud and charlatan. We won’t miss him. Though life will be less amusing without his followers swamping every meaningless online poll.

      I suspect Paul’s exit was brought on by the House banning earmarks which is what Paul was really known for.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Don’t cry to us because your morally bankrupt ideology has been repudiated by the American people, the GOP, and objective reality.

    • Finrod

      Luap Nor was one of the former. I consider myself one of the latter. The former contains lots of kooks, the latter has a lot of good Republicans and independents that take freedom and liberty seriously.

    • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

      Just make sure you pop back in every few months to remind us how much we really miss him. You know, in case we forget. Which I’m pretty sure we will.

      I am sure his district will miss all that pork he’s been sending them for so long, though.

    • Bill S

      “miss him”? You’re right. I’ll miss the comic relief he brings. I’ll miss his lunatic fringe followers here. I’ll miss the bizarro pre-election polls and the humor in seeing them totally disproven when the actual election returns come in.

      Net: I’ll miss his entertainment value. Maybe he can get a job on late-night TV…perhaps infomercials would suit him.

      • mikeymike143

        ”You and others are going to miss him” after ten posters in a row said they consider him a nt and will be glad when he is gone. LOL

    • BigRedConservative

      I’ll miss him like I miss bin Laden, the Spanish Plague and the Redcoats. Not at all.

  • Scope

    I was doing more research today on the quack, and I came across this article from 11/11/07-

    http://www.americandaily.com/article/20911

    So, you wonder where all that money is coming from, despite his low poll ratings, wonder no longer. You know this effort has been stepped up for 2012.

    • mikeymike143

      so it figures that they would support ron paul

    • Scope

      http://www.americandaily.com/article/20911

      I know that Mikey. I fixed the link, so read the article. Seems Ron Paul was competing with Obama for liberal dollars and votes.

      • Scope

        just Google (haha) Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous, J. B. Williams. Verizon and Microsoft were also big donors to Paul.

    • devereaux

      You don’t raise 6.2 million online in one day with average donation of less than 100 dollars and just draw money from lefties as Eric Dondero(who was fired by Ron Paul) claims. Lefties don’t give money to people who write stuff like this

      Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty

      http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

      • Scope

        in the article that one of Paul’s biggest donors was Google? You know, that company that didn’t just start skewing search results against conservative leaning articles? It’s the same as Paul accepting donations from radical groups like the KKK and etc., and not making a point of sending those monies back. Rather, he makes a statement that he is not responsible for those donations, while never denouncing their radical actions and motives. Paul is a fraud of the highest order.

        • cordpt

          You have no idea what you’re talking about. Google, as a company, can’t donate to candidates. Google didn’t donate to Paul.

          Here, take a look at Paul’s ’08 campaign top donors:

          http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00005906

          I think the small introductory text and the table will clear your confusion.

          Unless you believe the Pentagon also banked Paul’s campaign.

          It’s normal that Paul gets plenty of contributions from the internet/computers industry: there are plenty of libertarians working there. He only got more money from the military.