Has time proven Ron Paul correct?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i always worry about folks with money with their own picture on it.  other than caligula of course  he was a trend setter too

[MicroBalrog]

It might be a tad immature to pretend that WookieSuit/Troofer weirdness is the only reason that anyone here opposes Ron Paul.  Those of us who aren't on board for Ron Paul have given our reasons; economics, national security, etc. 

First, I can happily debate any of those issues, but I never said EVERYBODY who opposed Ron Paul is immature. This would be the height of idiocy. I states specifically that those people who supported people opposed to their own views on nearly issue based on the fact that RP was connected to strange people or 'was unelectable'  were acting, the first, in an immature manner, and the others, in a counterproductive manner. I completely understand people who supported, say, Huckabee or Fred.

Second, most of the people you see attacking the ostensible “Ron Paul movement” on these forums do this on the basis of “they had wacky people” or the much-maligned wookie suit.

[Perd Hapley]

Nevermind.  Don't let reality get in the way of your little fantasy.  In the real world, you can't just vote for the best guy.  You have to have a "best guy" that will not let himself become a laughing stock, as both Ron Paul and John McCain managed to do.  But don't worry about that.  People like yourself won't be much help in the political struggle, but at least you'll be the most ideologically pure subject of the Obamanation.  Might as well stay in Israel.  Mayhap we'll join you there, if it gets really bad here.

[MicroBalrog]

Have I said anything about ideological purity? No, I didn't.

There's a difference between "Let's vote for a slightly different guy because he's more electable" and "Let's vote for a completely different guy." Practicality has limits, too. Limits beyond which it is not really even that practical.

Do you think Andrew Sullivan supporting Obama in the general after endorsing Paul in the primary was smart?

How about these people?

[roo_ster]

Have I said anything about ideological purity? No, I didn't.

There's a difference between "Let's vote for a slightly different guy because he's more electable" and "Let's vote for a completely different guy." Practicality has limits, too. Limits beyond which it is not really even that practical.

Do you think Andrew Sullivan supporting Obama in the general after endorsing Paul in the primary was smart?

How about these people?

Andrew Sullivan long ago lost any credibility.  Dude is a fickle as the the Texas weather in springtime, with the exception of gay marriage.  On gay marriage he will use any argument at hand, even if it contradicts the argument he made the day before.

AS thinks he & his are the only "true conservatives." Thing is, AS also thinks taking buck-nekkid pictures of your HIV+ self and then trolling for anonymous sex on the internet is hunky-dory.

Tell me again why anyone would take AS seriously as anything other than an hysteric freakjob with the gift of clear prose (if not logic)?

From your hot air link:

Here’s a clip from last month of America’s Greatest Patriot acknowledging the overlap between his supporters/cult followers and Obama’s even while he derides Obama as an agent of the status quo, particularly with regard to keeping troops in Afghanistan. Or, as I like to call it, the war Ron Paul forgot he voted for.

That's ^^^ funny right there.

As to the meat of the link, the general thesis seems to be, "political exam poor means to determine libertarian personal philosophy."

One last note:  That clip of RP was one of his better snippets.  He kept it reasonable, avoided going into the details of his goldbuggery, & made a clear & simple argument that most folks could understand.  His supporters pick up on the dog whistle terms, but others do not.

If he could have kept that tone & level of detail on his more radical propositions, he would have made a much better candidate.

FTR, I doubt many successful revolutionaries laid it all out before they got their hands on the levers of power.  In the real world, you gotta flack he most popular bits of your agenda and downplay the less popular parts.

[MicroBalrog]

Thing is, AS also thinks taking buck-nekkid pictures of your HIV+ self and then trolling for anonymous sex on the internet is hunky-dory.

What are you referring to?

One last note:  That clip of RP was one of his better snippets.  He kept it reasonable, avoided going into the details of his goldbuggery, & made a clear & simple argument that most folks could understand.  His supporters pick up on the dog whistle terms, but others do not.

This.

Ron Paul has made an inept campaign in many, many ways.

[Perd Hapley]

There's a difference between "Let's vote for a slightly different guy because he's more electable" and "Let's vote for a completely different guy."

I think you may be quite confused about what I'm trying to tell you.  Hint:  I did not nominate McCain or Rudy, nor did I tell anyone else to.

[roo_ster]

What are you referring to?

AS built up some credibility years' back by writing against the gay bath house culture of unprotected anonymous sex by the truckload.

He also wrote about how monogamy is a good thing in gay relationships and wrote the seminal (no laughter, now) work on gay marriage.

Then, it turns out that he was in the habit of soliciting anonymous gay sex on line, including nekkid pictures of his HIV+ self on (laughter allowed, but keep it down) Barebackcity.com.

Here is one article:

The story goes like this: Some time ago, Sullivan, who is HIV positive, took out an anonymous personal ad on a website called Barebackcity.com, which advertises itself as the "one stop source for bareback [i.e., unprotected anal] sex." He listed himself under the screen name "RawMuscleGlutes," posted two headless photographs, and solicited bareback sex, preferably (although he did not say only) with other HIV-positive men. He also indicated an interest in "bi-scenes, one-on-ones, three-ways, groups, parties, orgies and gang bangs," but not in "fats and fems."

[seeker_two]

In the real world, you can't just vote for the best guy.  You have to have a "best guy" that will not let himself become a laughing stock....

Sage advice from the guy with the sock-monkey avatar..... 

[Perd Hapley]

There is also the problem that the US does not have much of a history of 3rd party success. There are occasional exceptions, such as TR, but that was not so much about a political party as it was about an individual. 

Are you talking about Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moosers?  I'm not sure I'd call that a success. 

[seeker_two]

Are you talking about Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moosers?  I'm not sure I'd call that a success. 

It was pretty successful for Woodrow Wilson.... 

[Hutch]

Back to one of the major drifts in this thread:
from THG

Anyway, the point is that debt is vanishing left and right

Ummmm, doesn't the FedGov count?  Deflation, during a time when we can see 1+ trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see?  What do you suppose will happen to the budget, the deficit, tax policy, and then the economy, when the Treasury has to bump up the T-bill interest rates in order to attract capital?  Dollars become Reichsmarks (see the Weimar Republic experience).  To (mis)quote the late voice character:  "Hyperinflation.  This time, it's for real!"

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

more drift   when i saw this thread the first thought that came was  "a broke clock is right twice a day"

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Back to one of the major drifts in this thread:
from THGUmmmm, doesn't the FedGov count?  Deflation, during a time when we can see 1+ trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see?  What do you suppose will happen to the budget, the deficit, tax policy, and then the economy, when the Treasury has to bump up the T-bill interest rates in order to attract capital?  Dollars become Reichsmarks (see the Weimar Republic experience).  To (mis)quote the late voice character:  "Hyperinflation.  This time, it's for real!"

A couple of points come to mind.

First, you're confusing what has happened in the recent past and present (deflation) with what is likely to happen sometime in the next few years (deficits and high inflation). 

Second, FedGov doesn't loan money.  They don't create money through fractional reserve lending.  FedGo cannot create money, only the Federal Reserve can.  FedGov can only acquire existing money from one place and spend it somewhere else. 

Third, high interest rates do not cause inflation the way you say.  High rates are a symptom of inflation.

The Fed is doing their best to turn the deflation back into inflation by creating gobs of money.  So far they haven't succeeded, because the economic conditions (liquidity crisis in the banks, recession in the overall economy, nobody wanting to borrow) are more powerful than they are.  But these conditions will someday pass, and when that happens it'll be a whole new ballgame.  The Fed will likely find that it has dramatically overcompensated, and that will cause inflation sometime in the future.

We're not there yet, though.  April 2nd might be an interesting day in this regard, if they eliminate mark-to-market.  Time will tell.

[Hutch]

My point about interest rates was that debt service cost will balloon in size once the fill in foreign creditor here folks begin to believe that the value of the dollar will fall.  There was a little tremor last week when the fed auction of T-Bills didn't go as planned.

Second, FedGov doesn't loan money

No, they borrow it, about a gazillion bucks so far.  This means that credit is created (T-bills issued) so the treasury can borrow.  When/if inflation cooks off (see above), the sound of smashing piggy banks will resound across the land, with a vast amount of dollars currently on the sideline, here and overseas, will enter the market, seeking tangible assets.  These dollars will cause a huge surge in price inflation.

My fear is that I may be a multi-millionaire in a few years.  And that it won't buy lunch at McDonald's.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

My fear is that I may be a multi-millionaire in a few years.  And that it won't buy lunch at McDonald's.

Rest easy, I think these fears are unfounded.

[makattak]

Rest easy, I think these fears are unfounded.

I don't think they are totally unfounded.

At the current projected spending, the interest paid per year on the national debt will be One Trillion Dollars in 10 years.

The INTEREST will be $1,000,000,000,000 per year!

I realize the ability to tax the American economy is a HUGE asset, but at some point our government will be unable to get people to buy their debt.

We cannot sustain this level of spending.

I do not see hyperinflation as an imminent threat, but I no longer consider it an impossibility for the United States.

THAT, by itself, is scary.

[MicroBalrog]

edGo cannot create money, only the Federal Reserve can. 

The Federal Reserve can be easily termed a government structure. It is, of course, part-private, but it is the public part that really defines its existence.

[Hutch]

Resurrecting the thread, I have been staying at a hotel that also houses FDIC employees and contractors who are deployed here to help dispose of a failed bank.  They (the contractors) are also concerned about an inflationary/hyperinflationary future.  Kinda chilling to here them talk about that, and in one case, his plans for self-sufficiency.