• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rand Paul wins, and libertarians rejoice

Black_Zawisza said:
If deflation never occurs, then how is such a situation not inevitable?
Click to expand...

Huh? Why would it be inevitable? I'm not following your logic here. The Fed controls the money supply, so as long as they don't double the money supply every 3 days like Weimar Germany did, it's not going to happen. :confused:
 
Kandahar said:
Huh? Why would it be inevitable? I'm not following your logic here. The Fed controls the money supply, so as long as they don't double the money supply every 3 days like Weimar Germany did, it's not going to happen. :confused:
Click to expand...
I don't claim to be a professional economist, but if you start with a 1913 dollar and then continuously print money over the course of a century until a 2010 dollar is worth $.04 in 1913 money, and then continue to print more money until a century later $1 is worth $.0016 in 1913 dollars, and so on until we're in the year 2510, how much money will it take to buy a hotdog? An aircraft carrier-full?
 
Last edited:
Black_Zawisza said:
I don't claim to be a professional economist, but if you start with a 1913 dollar and then continuously print money over the course of a century until a 2010 dollar is worth $.04 in 1913 money, and then continue to print more money until a century later $1 is worth $.0016 in 1913 dollars, and so on until we're in the year 2510, how much money will it take to buy a hotdog? An aircraft carrier-full?
Click to expand...

That's hardly comparable to Weimar Germany. If it happens over a scale of a century instead of week, it isn't a problem.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
A gold standard hampers our ability to use the single most effective weapon we have to fight recessions: Monetary policy. The Fed can't change the gold supply, but they can change the money supply as circumstances merit.

Ron Paul's view on the gold standard isn't merely wrong. It's spectacularly wrong. Not many serious economists even suggest the gold standard as a serious policy idea anymore, and for good reason.
Click to expand...

The fact the the Feds cant **** around with the supply is one of the reasons to embrace a hard money policy. The reason our currency has devalued over the years is because the Fed creates money out of thin air.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
I want some actual answers other than the bull**** I get from chickhawk, chicken**** neocons and ****tard liberals.
Click to expand...


I don't know about anyone else, but I'll tell ya, as a conservative, and have been one since I can remember, Dr. Paul's common sense approach to the constitution on matters of fiscal policy, and non intervention in foreign lands sounds like music to my ears.

However, he plunges off the deep end when during his campaign, instead of running on those things and building a consensus through moderate delivery of libertarian philosophies, he knew that he was getting trounced against the other two idiots. So, what'd he do? He moved to the kooks for support. The Alex Jones conspiracy freaks, and closet anarchists that believe that everything is America's fault including 9/11, and we are ignoble as a nation.

If he truly sees America that way, then our leader he can not be.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
However, he plunges off the deep end when during his campaign, instead of running on those things and building a consensus through moderate delivery of libertarian philosophies, he knew that he was getting trounced against the other two idiots.
Click to expand...

So in other words you want the man to change for you. That what liberals want everyone else to do and conservatives bitch about that.


So, what'd he do? He moved to the kooks for support. The Alex Jones conspiracy freaks, and closet anarchists that believe that everything is America's fault including 9/11, and we are ignoble as a nation.
Click to expand...

Since when does doing interviews with Alex Jones is considered to moving towards him? Paul has never come out in support of the 9/11 truth movement, anything that says otherwise is smear by his enemies. Other people have done interviews with Jones; Lou Dobbs and Andrew Napolitano to name two. I also find it funny how when Paul talks about CIA blowback thats considering being pro-terrorist. People dont like to hear the truth about our foreign policy so its easier to squawk out Neocon talking points to the man.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
So in other words you want the man to change for you. That what liberals want everyone else to do and conservatives bitch about that.
Click to expand...


No, I don't want anything out of the good Doctor other that what he thinks is the truth. But let's look at this realistically shall we? Paul did change how he was running and who he was in his own campaign when he played to all those truthers on American campuses in the campaign. Now you supporters want to deny that part of things but history doesn't lie.


Since when does doing interviews with Alex Jones is considered to moving towards him? Paul has never come out in support of the 9/11 truth movement, anything that says otherwise is smear by his enemies.
Click to expand...


P-U-H-LEEEEEEZE!!!!! So now if we don't jump behind Paul we are enemies of the man? Come on chevy, you're a better poster than that.

If you are trying to say that Dr. Paul didn't espouse the theory that we were attacked because of our own policies abroad, and he believes that the investigation into 9/11 was a cover-up....Here he is at a 9/11 truther House party talking about getting with Kusinisch about a new investigation into 9/11, and for what purpose do you suppose? I'll tell ya, to blame America in one fashion or another.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d91a13Yr3oQ"]YouTube- Ron Paul Questioned about 9/11[/nomedia]


Other people have done interviews with Jones; Lou Dobbs and Andrew Napolitano to name two. I also find it funny how when Paul talks about CIA blowback thats considering being pro-terrorist. People dont like to hear the truth about our foreign policy so its easier to squawk out Neocon talking points to the man.
Click to expand...


So what? We aren't talking about Napolitano, or Dobbs here, we are talking about Paul. And Alex Jones. Do you consider Jones to be a credible source? I don't. Some things I hear him talk about are interesting to listen to for the entertainment value, but then as usual he just carries it too far.

But If I read you correctly here, and through all the name calling, you are saying that if we don't buy the supposed fact that America is the root cause of all the consternation in the world then we are just 'neocons', or 'enemies', or somehow 'liberals' and not true conservatives. Let's me ask you libertarians something. Who died and left you in charge of assigning affiliation to anyone?


j-mac
 
Zyphlin said:
From what I've read about Rand, and admittedly its limited thus far, Rand seems to be what I've been saying was needed for Ron Paul for a while...

Namely, Ron Paul's generalized views mixed with some legitimate pragmatism and realism, mixed with a slightly less radical foreign defense policy.
Click to expand...

QFT.

I've always admired Ron Paul, love his passion, agree with a lot of his common sense positions. But then he turns into Ron Paul, and I get the eeby geebies. He seems to drift out there in his own little thought world too often.

Take Ron Paul and polish him up in a good way. Give him more presence, and you've got the kind of candidate that not only believes the right things, but can influence and persuade others to follow him.
 
Kandahar said:
That's hardly comparable to Weimar Germany. If it happens over a scale of a century instead of week, it isn't a problem.
Click to expand...
Can you please explain the difference to me, other than the fact that the crisis is centuries away rather than years?

Erod said:
QFT.

I've always admired Ron Paul, love his passion, agree with a lot of his common sense positions. But then he turns into Ron Paul, and I get the eeby geebies. He seems to drift out there in his own little thought world too often.

Take Ron Paul and polish him up in a good way. Give him more presence, and you've got the kind of candidate that not only believes the right things, but can influence and persuade others to follow him.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. While I agree with 99% of his positions, I find it easy to understand why people call him a crazy kook. He just doesn't have the charisma and public speaking skills that most politicians have.
 
Last edited:
So, how many libertarians (even the ones who were elected under a different party name) are in the house and senate now? Is it just Ron and Rand?
 
megaprogman said:
So, how many libertarians (even the ones who were elected under a different party name) are in the house and senate now? Is it just Ron and Rand?
Click to expand...

Rand Paul is not in congress yet. He won the republican primary is all.
 
megaprogman said:
Oops.

So, is it just Ron?
Click to expand...

He is the only one I can think of. Most of the country still finds Libertarians way too far out there, hence the jubilation at some one close to them actually winning a primary.
 
1984 said:
Great news! Let's carry this momentum into 2010 and 2012!

Give me liberty or give me death!
Click to expand...

Libertarians are rejoicing for a Republican?

Wouldn't they rather see, um... a Libertarian?
 
hazlnut said:
Libertarians are rejoicing for a Republican?

Wouldn't they rather see, um... a Libertarian?
Click to expand...
The term "libertarian" can refer both to the American political party (capital L) and the ideology (lowercase l). Libertarian Party members are generally considered to be way out of the mainstream, but Rand's a fairly moderate libertarian.

Besides, I'm willing to guess that Libertarian Party members generally prefer a Republican over a Democrat.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
The fact the the Feds cant **** around with the supply is one of the reasons to embrace a hard money policy. The reason our currency has devalued over the years is because the Fed creates money out of thin air.
Click to expand...

So what? Why the obsession with our currency devaluing? It's not like we have hyperinflation. If it happens over the scale of decades, it's barely noticeable.

Or do you think that a weak dollar in general is a bad thing? If so, why?
 
Black_Zawisza said:
Can you please explain the difference to me, other than the fact that the crisis is centuries away rather than years?
Click to expand...

If our currency's half-life is a couple decades instead of a couple days, then it doesn't affect stability. People don't have to rush out to spend their money as soon as they get it. And you don't need to carry truckloads of money with you wherever you go, because the government has ample time to see the inflation and just circulate whatever denominations of money would actually be practical for people to use. And you can borrow money in your own currency at a reasonable interest rate, because it's a credible source of value.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
If our currency's half-life is a couple decades instead of a couple days, then it doesn't affect stability. People don't have to rush out to spend their money as soon as they get it. And you don't need to carry truckloads of money with you wherever you go, because the government has ample time to see the inflation and just circulate whatever denominations of money would actually be practical for people to use. And you can borrow money in your own currency at a reasonable interest rate, because it's a credible source of value.
Click to expand...
In a century the intrinsic value of a $1 bill as flammable material will be higher than the value the government will give it. The penny will be worth more as melted zinc than it will as money. Are we just going to burn and melt all that dough away, and with it all the money it took to print it?
 
Last edited:
Black_Zawisza said:
In a century the intrinsic value of a $1 bill as flammable material will be higher than the value the government will give it. Are we just going to burn all that dough away, and with it all the money it took to print it?
Click to expand...

Essentially, yes. The government takes certain money out of circulation all the time and introduces new money. The lifespan of any given bill is only a couple years anyway. Phasing out $1 bills eventually will cost virtually nothing, and is hardly a sound justification for pegging our currency to gold.
 
Small amounts of inflation is a good thing. It discourages people from just sitting on their money, because if they do so it will lose value. Instead, they invest it/spend it which is what we need for a healthy economy. With zero inflation or deflation, people would be more inclined to just keep their money under the proverbial mattress.

Inflation is like dark chocolate!
 
danarhea said:
What I am seeing at the present time is REAL Tea Partiers taking over, and not the fake Tea Party Express, which has been attempting to hijack the movement. I was harsh on them for a while, but now I am very optimistic that the real McCoy is going to take the party back, and not the fakes.
Click to expand...

They may have made the right decision in Kentucky by helping Rand Paul get elected but you have to admit that they messed up in the Texas primary by electing Rick Perry instead of the Libertarian candidate Debra Medina. One more fact is that in these two elections, Both candidates that won were endorsed by Sarah Palin so doesn't that bother you a bit because it seems as if they are leaning a lot where she leans?
 
I have to say--while I'm not totally won over by RON Paul, I do enjoy hearing him speak and think he has some interesting ideas.

But his son, Rand, is kind of a loudmouth. Not at all thoughtful and articulate like his father.

What was all that calling out President Obama? He does realize he's still running for office and that office is in the Senate?

These extended election cycles have got to stop. We pay them to work, not run for office.
 
hazlnut said:
I have to say--while I'm not totally won over by RON Paul, I do enjoy hearing him speak and think he has some interesting ideas.

But his son, Rand, is kind of a loudmouth. Not at all thoughtful and articulate like his father.

What was all that calling out President Obama? He does realize he's still running for office and that office is in the Senate?

These extended election cycles have got to stop. We pay them to work, not run for office.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul's demise was during the primaries, when the GOP was circling the wagons after the Bush fiasco, he went on record criticizing the party. His points were on and his honesty was beyond reproach. But you just don't tell a rightwinger they're wrong about anything. Even if it is the truth. They have their own version of truth. Open mouth, insert foot.
 
hazlnut said:
What was all that calling out President Obama? He does realize he's still running for office and that office is in the Senate?
Click to expand...

Judging by everything that's gone on since Pres. Obama got elected I actually think it's a good idea for Rand Paul to call him out. Just think about it, Everyone the President has endorsed in their election ended up losing: John Corzine, Martha Coakley, Arlen Specter, and one who might lose in a run off next month Blanche Lincoln. So looking at that record is almost telling you that if the President endorses Jack Conway, Then it's an automatic victory for Rand Paul.

I thought it was funny when he said that he'd pay for his plane ticket to come out to Kentucky, That was pretty interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom