Ron Paul Spam Traced to Reactor Botnet

Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? writes "Ars is reporting that the Ron Paul spam has been traced back to the Reactor botnet. According to the SecureWorks report, which originally identified the spammer, someone calling themselves nenastnyj was behind it and their botnet control server has been shut down. The Ron Paul campaign has previously denied any connection with this spam campaign."

Comments

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Butisol]

His voting record suggests otherwise.

Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sure)

[explosivejared]

I told you all Ron Paul was a saint. Ron Paul would never stoop to spamming. He is right on par with a god, in fact he may be a god (the tests are still being run). Any of you jerks who thought that this stuff was official hate the constitution and what to see the the declaration of independence used as toilet paper. I hate anyone who thinks any ill of Ron "OUR MESSIAH" PAUL!! GET IT!

it's not like people don't play dirty

[crossmr]

but even if you trace it to a spammer does it really prove the campaign had anything to do with it? Do you think viagra is behind the v1 4ga spam you see in your inbox? Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[Frosty Piss]

Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..

That's a little "tinfoil hatish" if you ask me. Ron Paul is an interesting candidate, but not really a serious contender that any other candidate would consider risking this sort of thing to blacken with this type of "dirty campaigning" label.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[s20451]

Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..

Gee, I hope they clear up this nasty business! I would hate to see it affect Ron Paul's chances of being elected President.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[crossmr]

Done through enough channels you wouldn't know if it was you, me or George Bush who paid them to do it. Just saying that things don't always seem as they appear especially in the spam world.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[Some_Llama]

"That's a little "tinfoil hatish" if you ask me. "

I agree, but it seems like there is a lot of stuff going on behinds the scenes that keep him a small player.. rigged phone polls, microphone amplified ridicule at debates, online poll result skewing...

I don't know if you have seen a lot of the bruhaha about these types of things but there is definitely a grass roots movement behind Mr Paul who keep showing these types of inconsistencies...

Also he seems to be one of the ONLY candidates who is for radically smaller government, something all the other politicians and corporate sponsors definitely don't want...

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[jc42]

Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..

That's a little "tinfoil hatish" if you ask me.

So who asked you? ;-)

Haven't you heard of "push polls"? I've been "polled" by at least three of them in the past year. They never will tell you who's paying them, either. But this story is just an "on the Internet" version of the same sort of dirty tricks. It's an old, old story.

Then there was my favorite trick: Soon after I moved to Boston in the early 80's, there was a local election in which one of the candidates had an Irish name that's very common in the area. Shortly before the deadline to register for the election, several other people with the same name registered for the same office. None of them campaigned. The fellow lost to the only other candidate that did campaign.

Of course, there are limits to that tactic. There probably aren't very many Americans named "Barack Obama". Or "Hillary Clinton", for that matter. ;-)

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[AvitarX]

Probably a mis-guided grass roots effort.

I see Ron Paul signs by my house that are bedsheets with spray paint hung from overpasses. I doubt the campaign is responsible for them either.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how anyone could be a geek on /. and not know that Ron Paul promotion is one of those viral web things that show up a lot on YouTube, random gaming sites, blogs, basically all over the place. If college kids all over the place are putting together grassroots advertising for Ron Paul, it's pretty obvious that this was some Ron Paul fan that also ran a botnet that got a really, really, bad idea on his own and ran with it. And the media is happy to portray it as coming from Ron Paul himself.

I mean, if some random Ron Paul supporter put together this site, where completely grassroots fundraising raised $4.3 million in individual contributions, it's pretty obvious Ron Paul supporters are willing to do a lot on their own, without direction from the campaign. They're doing it again, shooting for $10 million more on December 16th.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[crossmr]

What? Impossible. Ron paul probably hung them himself and he should be arrested for causing a possible unsafe situation. Burn him, he's a witch!

I actually hate him as much as 90% of the people on the internet and am sick of seeing stories about him, but I'm also not much for drawing loose connections.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[Anonymous Coward]

[Ron Paul's political enemies buying pro-Ron Paul spam to hurt his campaign?] That's a little "tinfoil hatish" if you ask me. A little? I'd say it's way out in tinfoil country. Spam makes big money because for a certain percentage of people, it works. Anyone hoping to damage the Ron Paul campaign in this way would have to weigh the odds of the spam increasing his support versus the chance that the news about the spam would reduce it. And as a few seconds thought shows, the first thing most people think is "oh, so some internet moron was spamming people with Ron Paul ads. I doubt his campaign had anything to do with it."
  So there's little chance people are going to say "GASP! Ron Paul ads came from a spammer! I bet Ron Paul himself paid the spammer out of his own pocket! Well that does it, I'm not voting for him now!" but there is a strong probability that some of the people getting the spam are the sort to acquire their opinions from their inbox, so the net result would be a boost to Ron Paul's numbers.

  You'd have to be an idiot who's only 3 pages into "Elections for Dummies" to think that tactic would do you any good. And really, why bother, when there's tried and true methods of rumor-mongering and push-polling and outright swift-boat lying to smear a candidate with.

  - mantar

(P.S. to "Libertarian" party supporters: Power corrupts. No matter who you vote for, the government gets in.)

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[Merusdraconis]

"rigged phone polls, microphone amplified ridicule at debates, online poll result skewing..." ...his insane Fortress America policies...

"Also he seems to be one of the ONLY candidates who is for radically smaller government, something all the other politicians and corporate sponsors definitely don't want..."

The politicians might, but the corporate sponsors definitely want smaller government. I mean, smaller government inevitably means less powerful government, which means power vaccuum, and guess who's going to fill that power vaccuum?

I'd like to see efficient government, personally. In some cases this means smaller government, in others, larger. Almost universally it means that strongarming and spying on regular citizens is a waste of resources.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[Nephilium]

Not really true... most small corporations want smaller government in the areas of their field... while the bigger corporations want bigger government, with more barriers to entry to help protect themselves...

Nephilium

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[squiggleslash]

If it were anyone but Ron Paul then I'd say yes. But Ron Paul isn't someone anyone in the political establishment really believes has any chance of winning. So why risk the chance of being caught setting such a smear campaign up to discredit a candidate who poses no real threat to begin with?

The likely culprits are people with no connection to either Ron Paul's campaign or any of his opponents. Either an over-enthusiastic supporter, or else someone with a chip on his shoulder about Ron Paul who wants to make him look bad. And I'm only considering the latter possibility because the "Well, Ron Paul voted against this, unlike everyone else, so he must be a great President!" phenomenon certainly annoys the crap out of me, and I'd imagine it does the same for others.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[UbuntuDupe]

While I'm way too biased in favor of libertarians to be objective about this, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest another Republican was behind this. It's no secret that a lot of Republicans are livid about his candidacy and don't like being associated with him, and therefore would be glad to tarnish him, even if he has no chance of winning.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I heard that was once done with telemarketing candidates, maybe it was done more recently too. Where you get numerous annoying phone calls saying they are from candidate "A" when "B" paid for it in a ruse to get people pissed off at "A" to vote for "B" instead. The law moves so slowly that by the time it gets prosecuted, the election is done.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[Aerion]

things don't always seem as they appear

... Yes, they do!

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[Mix Master Nixon]

This certainly seems like a move directly from the Karl Rove playbook. I suspect whoever was responsible was a Republican, and I seriously doubt they were a Ron Paul supporter.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[Arthur B.]

No one will fill the vaccuum, corporations don't have any power, per se. They can only gain power by tapping on the government monopoly of law and its ability to tax. For this, they need a big and powerful government.

You talk about efficiency, but before even thinking about efficiency you should look at ethics. Government, large or small is unethical.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[jmorris42]

> It's no secret that a lot of Republicans are livid about his candidacy and don't like being associated
> with him, and therefore would be glad to tarnish him, even if he has no chance of winning.

Of course not. Which is kinda beside the point. Of course Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination and wouldn't win the general if it somehow did. I know that, you know that and Ron Paul knows that. Just like Ross Perot knew he wasn't going to be POTUS in 1992 but he DID get to determine the outcome of the election. Perot hated Bush Sr. with a white hot passion and was ensuring "Not Bush" won that election. Don't think he cared one way or the other about Mr. Clinton, just that he wasn't Bush was good enough for him. It was pretty obvious he only went through the motions again in '96 because he was guilt tripped over getting so many ignorant but honest folk worked up over him.

Many Republicans (rightly) fear Paul has much the same motivation, to influence the nomination process with his unwinnable campaign. Especially now that he has real money to throw around. Expect him to create MUCH mischief in NH, I'd be shocked if he DOESN'T end up in double digits there, especially if Mrs. Clinton puts BHO away in IA all of the nutballs will be crossing over to vote for Paul, pretty much ending McCain's candidacy at a minimum. Maximum damage Paul could cause? Unknown, which is why the fear and loathing in the Republican ranks. There are a lot of open primary states and Paul will probably do well in all of them if Hillary seals the deal early.

Of course I don't have a problem with that, since McCain is a bigger menace to the Republic than Paul as far as I'm concerned. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." is Mr. McCain having problems with?

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[coryking]

Wow... looks like the moderation system on slashdot is being gamed just as badly as it gets gamed on digg whenever there is a Ron Paul article. Any Ron Paul article on Digg will have anybody who badmouths "Dr. Paul" voted to into negative infinity. Who knew botnets could get mod points here?

VOTE FOR RON PAUL 2008!!!!!* ... there... that ought to please those bots, er slashdot moderators
* do not vote for ron paul in 2008.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[mojo-raisin]

Power vacuum?

That's a good one. Like there will be a power vacuum left by eliminating the Department of Education, the IRS and Homeland Security.

About the only place I could possibly see you having a valid point is in regards to transportation. But Ron Paul is not talking about privatizing roads - that would be decades down on the list of government waste to be replaced by private enterprise.

All change would have to pass through Congress. So a vote for Ron Paul is a vote to attempt to fix the massive waste and debt we have now.

He's the only candidate seriously concerned with individual Americans. He is the only candidate talking about inflation and how to fix it. He's the only one who wants to end the American empire, and yet still have productive ties with other countries. He's the only one who could save Social Security. And he's the only one with a decent health care plan. Get the government out, allow people to keep their own money, and many, many more could get health insurance.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[evil agent]

No, sometimes they're closer.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[NormalVisual]

It's also possible that it's simply an Alan Ralsky-level spammer out there that doesn't like Ron Paul and is using his available resources to hurt him the best way he can at little to no cost to himself.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[rtb61]

What is a wonder is people like you, get the government out and let the people do what? The government is the people not some mysterious outside force, it is the people working together to achieve more then they ever can on their own. The abuses of past private industries and unenlightened self interest is where all the government regulation come from. It was the people reacting to the excesses of greed and corruption embedded within private industry which always ends up pursuing the lowest common denominators, unlimited greed and the right to exploit and abuse anyone and everyone they can.

The governments money is the people's money, the only time it ceases to be the people's money is when private interests, that's right 'private' interests corrupt the government and steal that money for themselves. After all those years of privatisation and deregulation are you blind to not seeing that you are worse off and defying all logic you want even more deregulation and privatisation because some how by reason of mass media BS marketing the past history of centuries of exploitation by unregulated private interests will not generate exactly the same kind of suffering, the strong democratic government with effective government departments ended.

Public education and public hospitals, and public services created the growth of the twentieth century, private industry is now running it all down and exploiting it and the people are far worse off. Ron Paul shares the same unrealistic disconnect that gullible voters do, that somehow quite stupidly that a weaker more privatised hence far less democratic government will make it better, look around surely a decade of exactly that, must convince you that a more democratic, more socially equitable and hence more powerful (as in the power of the people) government will create a healthy and happier society (look at the reality of the 50s and 60s not at the current B$ mass media greed is god distort).

Now in the case of RP spam, he obviously attracts radical fringe elements who consider spamming etc acceptable in the pursuit of their own goals, hardly his fault it just defines the nature of some of his policies.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[apparently]

A search at dailykos for robocalls yields an example, or two.

As we did our best to document, the National Republican Congressional Committee was responsible for repetitive, often harrassing robo calls in more than two dozen districts across the country in the runup to the election.

Unless practitioners are criminally charged and exposed for this kind of behavior, any fines that are imposed will merely be written off as campaign expense.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

More likely, I think, is that it's a misguided attempt from a would-be supporter to help his favored candidate.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[stuartkahler]

Paul has raised over $10 MILLION in just the last two months from about 100,000 supporters. That's more than any other republican in the third quarter.
RP's opponents can't find any actual scandal or issue to smear him with, so they've resorted to 'don't waste your vote on him because he can't win'. Or saying he's not a real Republican just because he didn't follow the recent GOP policy shifts that have them hemmoraging voters and congressional seats.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[M. Baranczak]

Rove? This predates Rove. In the 72 election, before the NH primary, people were getting calls at 3 AM from someone claiming to represent the Harlem Voters for Muskie, telling them what a fine job he was doing to "help the black man". These calls were (much) later tied to the Nixon campaign. Their logic was, Muskie was the Democrat most likely to win the general election, so they were doing whatever they could to hurt him in the primaries. Crude, but it worked. And this is just one that they didn't manage to hide... makes you wonder how much shit like this goes on that you never find out about.

Acquiring a botnet isn't something you do casually. Whoever was behind this was pretty damn motivated, and had some non-trivial resources at his disposal. It makes no sense for the Ron Paul campaign to do it. Or for any of the Democrats to do it. So who's left? And what are their possible motives?

I think Ron Paul is a fucking nutjob, by the way.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[mojo-raisin]

"Ron Paul shares the same unrealistic disconnect that gullible voters do, that somehow quite stupidly that a weaker more privatised hence far less democratic government will make it better."

This is where you lose me. I don't think it's democratic to take my money to fund all these public programs.

If I decide that I don't want to participate, and try to withhold taxes, I go to jail. So basically I'm a slave for the state.

At least in a private system, I have the personal choice of what I want to spend my money on. And my income is not taxed.

Otherwise, I'm all for the good of the general public.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[DogBotherer]

Do you think viagra is behind the v1 4ga spam you see in your inbox? Er, I believe that's Pfizer not Viagra... (who don't spam I mean!)

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[moeinvt]

"The government is the people . . ."

Wrong. The government is SUPPOSED to be "of the people" but that noble intent has long since been perverted. The FEDERAL Government is now a monstrosity whose goals are typically in direct conflict with the best interest of the people (the vast majority anyway). Let's see . . . 2 ongoing wars, $9 trillion in debt, The Patriot Act, the DMCA, warrantless wiretapping, 20 million illegal immigrants, record trade deficits, secret prisons, etc. etc. Is that serving the people and protecting democracy? Maybe you support those policies, and think that the people who oppose them are "radical fringe elements", but I certainly don't. It seems to me that Government and "the people" now exist in an increasingly adversarial relationship where a self-serving government now aims to suppress dissent and crush any opposition.

"The governments money is the people's money."

A fact that the elected officials in Washington blatantly ignore . . .

"it ceases to be the people's money . . .when private interests . . . corrupt the government"

Cut the Federal government down to about 25% of its current size, and there would be little incentive for private interests to hijack the election process, and fewer kickbacks to be doled out to the biggest campaign contributors.

Let's be straight. Ron Paul is running for President of The United States. His aim is to reduce the size and power of the FEDERAL government. That doesn't mean that you and the people in your state can't raise taxes, create a strong STATE government and provide additional public services. That's the whole intent of The Constitution, and it seems that Ron Paul wants to move us back in that direction.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[droptone]

You don't think it's democratic? You seem to use this word "democratic" in an odd manner. You think the process is unfair or unjust, not undemocratic. To claim it's not democratic is to claim that these laws were passed without either the explicit or implicit support of the populace.

A democracy isn't a place where you get to get out of obligations by saying that you do not agree with them. If you do not agree with those obligations, then work to change the laws.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[mojo-raisin]

I think it is undemocratic.

I can't possibly be accurately represented at the federal level. It is too large and unwieldy.

I don't consent to my money being given to help other nations. How does that represent me? Or any American? It represents politicians.

I don't have a problem with taxes at the local & state level. But federal income tax is undemocratic.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[rthille]

Well, not sure about scandal, but there was the issue about the racist statements published in his name in his newsletter. It took him quite a while to disclaim those statements.
But while those statements concerned me, I still felt that he was the only Republican candidate I could possibly vote for. Seeing bits out of the latest youtube debate I'm not sure I could vote for him. The 'god' bits were bothersome, but the main problem I have with him is his stance on Roe v Wade and his calling of abortion, 'murder'. Regardless of whether he believes it or is just pandering, I don't think I could vote for him over someone else who supports Roe v. Wade.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[droptone]

I think it is undemocratic.

Were the laws enacted without the explicit (direct referendum) or implicit (electing a candidate that enacted the law(s)) approval of the populace? Here is where you figure out whether or not it is undemocratic. In countries with bills of rights, then you may also see if it violates any axiom of the government.

I can't possibly be accurately represented at the federal level. It is too large and unwieldy.

Then you have problems with the practicality of the laws, not whether they are "undemocratic" or not.

I don't consent to my money being given to help other nations.

Well, this government runs by the vote of populace. We do not need a unanimous decision to enact a law. Therefore objecting that you do not consent is a pointless enterprise. If you feel strongly that this is a bad policy then you ought to try to convince others to vote differently.

How does that represent me? Or any American? It represents politicians.

As I said above, the law need not represent you. It represents Americans because Americans are the ones who vote in the politicians who enact these sorts of laws.

Re:it's not like people don't play dirty

[rtb61]

The fully privatised state is a monarchy ie. completely in control of a single private individual, you are a slave and now don't own anything. The state provides you with the opportunity, the state defines your ownership, the state attempts to provide for your safety, with out the state and with completely freedom of choice you would be as a beast in the field.

Don't think so, then bloody think from whom democracy had to initially steal the world so that you in your ignorance could own anything at all. In a private system the monarchy even owns you, fool serf.

Laws exist because a significant number of individuals are completely unable to sensibly or with some moral direction exercise their freedom of choice and the existence of the rich and greedy is a strong indication that the laws have not gone far enough.

Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur

[explosivejared]

Ahhhh!! Sweet Vindication!

Unfortunately...

[Goalie_Ca]

There are still tons of kiddies unable to vote and barely able to read and write flooding the web2.0 sites with ron paul crap.

On another note, I am Canadian. To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide. I am not only sick of Ron Paul, but of the whole 2008 election. I was sick of it back in 2006.

Canada has a minority government. It could go into an election at any time really. Most people are concerned about the bills and policies of the government currently in power. It makes no sense to spend more time agonizing over some potential policies of guys who will never be elected while ignoring the government and representatives currently making the decisions.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide.

Why shouldn't it last 4 years - or longer - and cost a large fraction of the GNP. Civil wars do.

Republics are designed to model civil wars accurately enough that they can be "fought" to their conclusion without all that nasty dying, burning of crops and towns, and so on.

They do a good enough job of it (except for assasinations B-( ) that the US hasn't had to hold a full-scale civil war in well over a century (though there hace been a few small ones when the the elections were corrupted or a significant power group was disenfranchised and oppressed).

See the "Battle of Athens" for one example.

Re:Unfortunately...

[jcr]

That wasn't really a civil war. A civil war is two factions fighting for control of a country, not one part of a country splitting off and being re-conquered by the other.

-jcr

Re:Unfortunately...

[coldmist]

You know, speaking as an American here, it's only the big TV news channels and the big newspapers which are agonizing over the "election" already. Unless I hear about a debate and want to watch it, or see a headline on Drudge, I don't see much of it.

It's just the press feeding the press at this point. We (the average people) know this. It's just people outside the US might have a harder time filtering it out.

Re:Unfortunately...

[GradiusCVK]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with pretty much everything you said. First: Yes, I am a 22 year old pursuing a Master's degree (partially fitting your description of a "kiddie ... flooding the web 2.0 sites with Ron Paul crap"... however, I have not yet met another person fitting that description in any of the numerous groups I am a part of who support Ron Paul. Everyone I know is a middle-to-late age person with a steady job and a LOT to lose by electing the wrong person. They do NOT participate a lot on the web, but they DO participate a lot in the real-world activities that support RP... just check out the straw polls: the people participating there are the ones I am describing. Second: I agree it is EXTREMELY important to argue against the policies of those currently in charge... in addition to supporting the policies of those who are running for office. Even if we can't get the people we want elected, we can hopefully prevent the election of those we completely disagree with. However, I think that getting a person who we completely agree with elected is at least as important... how can you possibly disagree? It just doesn't make sense.

To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide. I am not only sick of Ron Paul, but of the whole 2008 election. I was sick of it back in 2006. I'm sorry, but this statement is a contradication... you AGREE that campaigns should not be based almost entirely on money (like Romney and Giuliani) but on popular support (like Ron Paul, who HAPPENS to also have raised a lot of money from those people), but then go on to say you are sick of Ron Paul... Ron Paul is the ANSWER to our problems... I don't need to specify the reasons (90% of the intelligent commentators, especially on the web, could do this better than I can... if you want a reason, GOOGLE RON PAUL!). I agree that the 2008 election is basically a drain on one's energy and optimism, but THE EXCEPTION IS RON PAUL. Really, it seems that your statement is not internally consistent. Perhaps you should take a course in basic logic? FYI, 2+2=4, yes!=no, etc...

Re:Unfortunately...

[m2943]

It makes no sense to spend more time agonizing over some potential policies of guys who will never be elected while ignoring the government and representatives currently making the decisions.

After you've elected your representatives, what they do is out of your hands; the only way you can change their behavior is to elect someone different next time. Therefore, agonizing over who to elect next time is, in fact, the only thing that makes sense if you live in a representative democracy. Worrying about day-to-day policies is pointless once you've made up your mind that you already don't like the current guys.

On another note, I am Canadian. To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide.

If you're trying to imply that the Canadian political system is somehow immune to such excesses, you're wrong. The reason companies spend a boatload of money on US elections is because US elections matter a great deal to their bottom line; on the other hand, who governs Canada simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside Canada.

Re:Unfortunately...

[OctaviusIII]

Right, right: because Ron Paul isn't the best candidate in your opinion, but he is best in fact. Logically infallible fact.

Re:Unfortunately...

[OctaviusIII]

First, I should say that I'm an American that has lived in Canada for the past 6 years as a political science student, so I've been following Canadian politics for a while now. Basically, the current situation in the States is a bit like how it was in Canada after Chretien left office: nobody cared that much about Martin and they just wanted to get on to the next thing, but even that's a weak comparison when examined next to the perfect storm of the '08 presidential campaign.

This year, things started so soon because of profound discontent with the Bush Administration, states moving up their primary schedule, and a field that is generally seen as stronger than we've had the past two elections: Clinton, Obama, Biden, Richardson, Paul, Huckabee.... all are either popular and, at worst, competent. Compare this with the "least bad" votes we had in 2000 and 2004. Few were really excited about Gore, Bush or Kerry, and people are excited now.

As for the rest of the premise, that we don't care about legislation, I think that's somewhat true. Americans have gotten tired of Pres. Bush's voice (although I did just hear him pronounce "nuclear" correctly for the first time that I can remember); they strongly dislike Congress; and they don't like the partisan bickering that will dominate the next 13 months. Nothing's running smoothly in Washington, and we don't have a Harper to cut the legs out from an already weak opposition. Everyone, except the candidates, are weak, and we desperately want to hold onto someone strong.

Re:Unfortunately...

[thedrunkensailor]

what you say is definitely true if we actually had power to change the current office or policies... i personally am banking on a change coming in the future

Re:Unfortunately...

[bladesjester]

What you say would only be true if the Confederacy didn't start raiding Union states. It ended up being a war where each side was trying to take over the other which is your definition of a civil war.

Re:Unfortunately...

[log1385]

But it does make sanse that we spend four years worrying about who is elected President (albiet because the system we have is flawed). Once someone is elected, they can do almost anything they want and the voters won't have a choice. The only reason most politicians have for listening to the public is to appease them for future re-election. Notice how George Bush was more popular during his first term, but now that he can't run again his approval ratings are lower. Since no one can do anything about our current President and current policy, people spend all of their time hoping that the next President is better.

Another note, candidates don't need corporation-sized funding to get by. Ron Paul has raised over $8 million from private individuals.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?cycle=2008&id=N00005906

Re:Unfortunately...

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Dude, there aren't that many of us. I'll pick you up on my way up there. Don't worry my car's a two seater, plenty of room.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Brandybuck]

Approximately 95% of Ron Paul's funding comes from individual voters, and not corporations or PACs. And I'm being conservative with that number. Yet he's raising millions despite limits to contributions. I seem to recall that the average donation was around $300.

This isn't a corporate campaign, this is a grass roots effort by individuals from all walks of life. I haven't seen anything like this in my lifetime. It may not be enough to match the corporate take of Hillary or Rudy, but it's certainly enough to shake some cobwebs out of the system.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Kenshin]

Ron Paul is the ANSWER to our problems

Ron Paul is the answer to America's problems in the same way that narcotics are the answer to life's problems. You have a wild and crazy trip, but then you crash hard when you wake up to reality biting you in the ass.

Re:Unfortunately...

[jmorris42]

> And to avoid be labeled a civil war, simply declare a portion of the country "independant"?

By your 'logic' the War in 1776 was also a Civil War. The difference is pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning brain and a basic understanding of the English language.

The US, an internationally recognized territory of the British Empire, wanted to be free of the Crown, thus making it a War of Independence. The CSA quit the Union, wishing to be recognized as an independent nation in exactly the same way as their forefathers had sent their Declaration of Independence to King George. The Union objected pretty much the same as King George did and for much the same reason (fear of losing a critical revenue stream, the North was very dependent on taxing Southern exports mixed with pride) and a War for Southern Independence was fought. The Union won, obviously and thus wrote the official histories.

Had it actually been a Civil War the CSA would have been trying to conquer the Union and thus win the right (through contest at arms) to control the whole of the United States and impose it's views.

> you sir are a fucking moron.

And thee are a foul mouthed twerp that needs to grow up and learn how adults discourse in public.

Re:Unfortunately...

[bladesjester]

Considering the fact that the Confederacy also attacked Union territories instead of simply trying to eject the enemy from their newly formed confederacy, it is not hard to argue that each was trying to take over the other. Thus, by your logic, it's still a civil war.

Re:Unfortunately...

[jcr]

No, the confederacy never had a goal of holding northern territory. The whole purpose of their campaign was to make the federal forces withdraw from the south, and force the north to recognize the CSA's independence.

-jcr

Re:Unfortunately...

[Kenshin]

Good point. You HAVE no real choices. But Ron Paul isn't a viable substitute. It's like replacing your dog, who won't stop shitting on the floor, with an untamed raccoon.

Re:Unfortunately...

[poopdeville]

By your 'logic' the War in 1776 was also a Civil War. The difference is pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning brain and a basic understanding of the English language.

Uh, it was. It was also a war of independence, by virtue of the fact that we won.

A war between factions or regions of the same country.
A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: "The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul" (Bill Powell).
Civil War The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865. Also called War Between the States.
Civil War The war in England between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists from 1642 to 1648.

Re:Unfortunately...

[jmorris42]

> ...it is not hard to argue that each was trying to take over the other.

And I'm sure if our Founding Fathers had possessed the ability to inflict damage on the British Isles they would have done so, in the (correct) belief that it would have hastened the end of the war. Likewise once War was joined the CSA did indeed attack enemy targets outside it's own borders. Intent is important however.

History records that General Lee did indeed contemplate sacking Washington DC as a means of forcing the Union to come to terms. He decided against that plan for military reasons (thinking it was an ambush) but had the plan been implemented and successful history records no desire on the part of the general or anyone of note in the Confederacy of any intention of retaining Washington or any other Union territory.

Hence my asstertion that it was NOT a Civil War, defined by all posters in this subthread as two or more factions seeking to control a single nation-state, but was instead a War of Independence. Union apologists generally can't bring themselves to admit this even today because it casts the Union, Lincoln, etc. in a very bad light but reality is what IS not what we wish were so.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Rakishi]

After you've elected your representatives, what they do is out of your hands; the only way you can change their behavior is to elect someone different next time. Therefore, agonizing over who to elect next time is, in fact, the only thing that makes sense if you live in a representative democracy. Worrying about day-to-day policies is pointless once you've made up your mind that you already don't like the current guys. BS, politicians aren't telepaths or mind readers or able to see into the future or even particularly intelligent. They also don't set their votes is stone the day they get elected but most importantly they want to get reelected. So yes you CAN influence them even after they get elected by writing to them and complaining. If enough people do so then they may change their vote since they WANT to please their constituents. Bloody hard for someone to represent the people (aka: get their votes again in x years again) when the people don't ever directly say what they want.

Re:Unfortunately...

[EvanED]

However, I think that getting a person who we completely agree with elected is at least as important... how can you possibly disagree? It just doesn't make sense.

I would like that. Which candidate do I completely agree with? (Hint: none. Further hint: the closest are too extreme to be elected.)

I agree that the 2008 election is basically a drain on one's energy and optimism, but THE EXCEPTION IS RON PAUL

By contrast, I find Ron Paul's campaign one of the more annoying parts of it.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

I love people who can come up with silly analogies but can't spend 10 seconds to substantiate their opinion. That summarizes modern politics today, doesn't it?

Re:Unfortunately...

[matjaz]

Actually, US Fiscal policy is like a narcotic -- saving problems by printing money.

Ron Paul is against such nonsense and for a sensible and responsible fiscal policy.

The only reality you will face if Ron does not get elected is more of the same,

and the bigger and bigger government limiting your freedoms even more.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Anonymous Coward]

People who support Ron Paul make me so fucking angry. They have absolutely no idea what kind of a man he is, nor do they have the slightest notion of politics.

Hey people: there's a reason why he's Stormfront's official candidate. There's a reason why David Duke, a white supremacist who's also a former Grand Wizard of the KKK, is lyrical about the man. There's also a reason for the full support he gets from holocaust-denier Hutton Gibson.

Someday, the kids who post stories on Digg about Ron Paul mentioning the word "constitution" will understand what kind of a terrible person he is, and how stupid they were for supporting him.

Re:Unfortunately...

[m2943]

So yes you CAN influence them even after they get elected by writing to them and complaining

Yes, and if you complain to them after election with the threat of not voting for them in the next election, then that's part of the extended four year campaign.

And with US presidents, this fails to work for periods of four years at a time, since they couldn't care less who you vote for next time.

Re:Unfortunately...

[ShakaUVM]

>>But Ron Paul isn't a viable substitute. It's like replacing your dog, who won't stop shitting on the floor, with an untamed raccoon.

What does that make Hillary then?

Oh, wait, Newt Ginrich's mom already made that joke.

Re:Unfortunately...

[EvanED]

It seems to me that GWB took us on a wild and crazy trip to Iraq, and now reality is biting us in the ass.

Yes, Ron Paul would be better than GWB.

Congratulations, you set the limbo bar about seven feet off the ground.

Re:Unfortunately...

[phantomfive]

Hilarious! I just had the greatest laugh of my day. Thankyou.

Re:Unfortunately...

[mmortal03]

He's only not a "viable" substitute because people who think in this way like you don't choose to support him.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The reason companies spend a boatload of money on US elections is because US elections matter a great deal to their bottom line; on the other hand, who governs Canada simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside Canada."

Huh? That makes no sense; you could just as well switch "US" and "Canada" around there: "The reason companies spend a boatload of money on Canadian elections is because Canadian elections matter a great deal to their bottom line; on the other hand, who governs the USA simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside the USA."

If you're from Canada, that statement makes perfect sense, just like your statement makes perfect sense if you're from the USA - of course what matters most to a US company is the USA's government, not the Canadian one, and what matters most to a Canadian company is the Canadian government, not the US one (just imagine that!).

Re:Unfortunately...

[Elky Elk]

the war in 1776 was a civil war, not everyone was on the side of independence

Re:Unfortunately...

[kvezach]

If you're trying to imply that the Canadian political system is somehow immune to such excesses, you're wrong. The reason companies spend a boatload of money on US elections is because US elections matter a great deal to their bottom line; on the other hand, who governs Canada simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside Canada. No. Unless you count these as unimportant, the United Kingdom used about $1.34 per capita for campaign finance in 2004. Canada used $1.50 per capita. The United States, on the other hand, used a much larger number, $16 per capita! So even when adjusted for population, the United States is way off the rest. The true problem is money influences much more than votes here. With the game stacked against the voters (and against third parties), how could it not?

Re:Unfortunately...

[Carewolf]

Ehmm, usually the only way to win a war is to invade your opponent and force them to agree to you peace terms.

Think about it, were the US in a Civil war with Germany when you invaded?

Re:Unfortunately...

[upside]

Which begs the question why the US president has so much power. Not only does the president already have an IMHO disproportional amount of say on things, it's incredible how Bush has been using signing statements to override whatever legislation he dislikes. Just Google it.

Re:Unfortunately...

[moeinvt]

You're actually suggesting that Ron Paul MUST be a terrible person and his politics are by definition WRONGg, just because a few extremists have endorsed his agenda????

You don't "make me" angry, but I get extremely frustrated with people who make such ridiculous arguments.

Re:Unfortunately...

[EvilNight]

Of course there is. Liberty is popular, even among vastly different groups that would love to destroy each other (blacks and white supremacists, for example). Are you upset that Ron's support ignores all common political boundaries? To me that seems like the mark of a savvy politician who gives people what they all want (rather than what a minority of them want to enforce on others).

Read the stormfront threads, they are hysterical. A lot of community HATES Ron but figures him for the lesser evil and for the only candidate that will get government off of their backs, so they consider him a concession vote. Your idiotic statements make it sound like Ron is an out and out racist who has their full support and shows up to the local KKK meetings. You're not doing yourself any favors with baseless slander. (Yes, I know about the letter, and that's been debunked to my satisfaction as well.)

I can find fifty problems worse than those (even if they were true!) with every other candidate. Scandals, gross abuses of taxpayer money, double talk and flip flopping on any politically convenient issue, highly questionable morals, utterly ridiculous religious stances, total intolerance to individual liberty and freedom, and a colorful history of lawbreaking sums up damn near every candidate running and certainly sums up all popular mainstream candidates in both parties. Ron is a saint compared to any of them. I'd take Dennis in a heartbeat as well. If that looks like a contradiction to you, then you haven't the faintest idea what a lot of us are looking for in a politician.

But please, just ignore Ron Paul. He's not your problem. Those of us who give a damn are taking care of him already.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Rakishi]

Yes, and if you complain to them after election with the threat of not voting for them in the next election, then that's part of the extended four year campaign. ...so your point is?

And with US presidents, this fails to work for periods of four years at a time, since they couldn't care less who you vote for next time. Well they do for the first four years but there aren't enough choices and too many idiots so it doesn't much matter if you don't vote for them. Of course since the US is not an elected dictatorship the government has more elected officials than just the president.

Re:Unfortunately...

[legojenn]

If you're trying to imply that the Canadian political system is somehow immune to such excesses, you're wrong. The reason companies spend a boatload of money on US elections is because US elections matter a great deal to their bottom line; on the other hand, who governs Canada simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside Canada.

---

While you are correct that the interest in Canadian federal general elections are limited to the northern part of North America, the money tied to US elections is just off the map compared to other democracies, even ones with larger economies than that wonderful country on the northern shores of the Great Lakes. I see it as more of a problem with fixed election dates. If you don't know when Parliament is going to be dissolved, you want to save your resources for the election call. The biggest downside to Westminster-style parliaments is that it does give the advantage in the game to the governing party who can ask the Crown (or president in parliamentary governed republics) to dissolve Parliament and call an election.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Risen888]

By your 'logic' the War in 1776 was also a Civil War.

Of course it was. Civil War, according to dictionary.com: A war between factions or regions of the same country. At the time, we were part of a country called Great Britain. Perhaps you've heard of them, they drink lots of tea, have better grammar than we do, and put out some quality sitcoms from time to time (see Red Dwarf).

If the south had won the War Between the States, would you also be insisting that that wasn't a "civil war?"

Re:Unfortunately...

[jcr]

At the time, we were part of a country called Great Britain.

Nope. We were colonies of Great Britain. Had we actually been part of the country, then we would have had representation in parliament. Does the phrase "taxation without representation" ring a bell?

-jcr

Re:Unfortunately...

[AtlasAxe]

> Hence my asstertion that it was NOT a Civil War, defined by all posters in this subthread as two or more factions seeking to
> control a single nation-state, but was instead a War of Independence. Union apologists generally can't bring themselves to admit
> this even today because it casts the Union, Lincoln, etc. in a very bad light but reality is what IS not what we wish were so.

No, you are putting words into other's mouths by saying all posters define it that way, and you are choosing to define the term in the way that best suits your conclusion:

Civil War:
http://hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=Civil+War
http://webster.com/dictionary/Civil%20War

In order for it to not be Civil War, you must first make the assumption that those who seceded from the US formed a legitimate government independent of the US. The elected US government never agreed to that. The war was fought to determine whether that southern government formed was legitimate, and the result was a decisive no.

It is the Southern apologists that contort and bend definitions to try to make it seem as though there was some sort of justifiable reason to engage in insurrection, primarily for the purpose of extending slavery to new territories. It was in no way equivalent on any level to the Revolutionary War.

as I thought

[vsync64]

They've tracked down the spammer and the software and configuration used. It's all about email and nothing about Web polls, let alone text message polls. So can the lies about "spamming the polls" please stop now? Thanks FOX.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul gives more than vague promises. He has a long, principled voting record.

Will he be an imperial president? No.

Will he be able to change the USA into some libertopia. No.

He can exercise veto power.

He can issue pardens.

He can bring the troops home.

That will be more than enough for me.

Real world people

[NEOtaku17]

I know many people think that Ron Paul doesn't have many real supporters and that it is mostly internet bots, but when Barack Obama visited Arizona State University to give a speech there were literally almost as many people with Ron Paul signs and t-shirts than Barack Obama even though Ron Paul wasn't even visiting that day. Make no mistake these supporters definitely are real. Unless of course all those people on campus are actually bots...

Re:Real world people

[megaditto]

A tiny vocal minority does not matter, in this case.

Your vote does not carry a passion multiplier.

Re:Real world people

[Frosty Piss]

Make no mistake these supporters definitely are real. Unless of course all those people on campus are actually bots...

The problem is, very few of those "free thinkers" will take the time to actually vote, and the few that do will vote the "lesser of two evils". Unfortunately, he majority of campus voters will be "young Republicans".

Re:Real world people

[jcr]

A tiny vocal minority

He has more individual donors than any other candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat.

-jcr

Re:Real world people

[CRCulver]

Which only makes them more vocal, not any less of a minority.

Re:Real world people

[dave562]

A tiny vocal minority does not matter, in this case.

It does matter in a country where the large majority of the elegible voters fail to vote. It especially matters when that "tiny minority" is comprised of a large majority of people who haven't voted in the past, or haven't voted in a long time. The number of people who are tired of politics as usual but are supporting Ron Paul is pretty astounding. The fact that the media needs to vilify his supporters in an attempt to stiffle the message goes to show the power of his candidacy. I wear a Ron Paul for President pin on my jacket. Every single person who has bothered to ask me who Ron Paul is has walked away with a favorable impression and committed to vote for him in the primary. Even some Democrats have said that although they aren't going to go Republican to vote in the primary, they do think his platform sounds better than what the Democrats have to offer.

I'm not going to go off the deep end and say that Ron Paul is going to win the nomination until after we see how he does in the early primary states. I think that what is going to happen is that he is going to come in a lot higher than the media is giving him credit for.

Re:Real world people

[jmorris42]

> He has more individual donors than any other candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat.

I don't seem to recall Mr. Dean's incredible support among the nutroots propelling him into the White House. Likewise I tend to doubt the Ronulans will do more than queer the race in some open primaty states in the same way McCain did in 2000. None (McCain and Paul for the Repubs, Dean for the Dems) are candidates normal party voters would vote for but attract plenty of crossover votes, nutballs, and diehards who will donate and spam online polls. Dennis Kucinich's supporters were spamming online polls almost as badly until most simply dropped him to stop it. Many had also dropped Paul until he rose enough in real polling some have added him back, whereupon the Ronulans instantly spammed em.

If anybody actually cared to research it, I'd expect you would find large numbers of registered Democrats donating to Paul just because they raealize how much mischief he will cause with a few million dollars to spend on TV ads.

Re:Real world people

[jcr]

The last time a Republican got a lot of crossover voters, he was also vehemently opposed by the "mainstream" of the Republican party, although they like to pretend now that they supported him all along. That was Ronald Reagan.

-jcr

Re:Real world people

[DamnStupidElf]

A tiny vocal minority does not matter, in this case.

Sure it matters, if they're on TV.

Re:Real world people

[mmortal03]

Nader's campaign in 2004 made $4,567,299, and Democrats accused Nader of having his bid funded by Republicans who wanted a repeat of his effect on the 2000 election. According to FEC records, the majority of donors who gave the maximum allowed donation to his campaign ($2,300) also gave the maximum to the Bush campaign! So now do we have the opposite going on? I'd like to see someone research it, but I am really doubtful that it will turn out to be a lot of Democrats donating to him. I could be wrong, and there is no way to prove it to you, but my activity in viewing the Ron Paul community seems to tell me otherwise.

Re:Real world people

[ds4081]

This country was founded a tiny minority. The vast majority didn't want to stand up to England. Give me a break. Ron Paul has a uphill battle, but he is getting closer to winning everyday. he will raise 15 million this quarter.

Maybe its form of spammer lobbying

[vux984]

I mean, if I were operating a botnet and sending out spam, and I wanted to protect my business interests I'd vote Ron Paul.

Not that Ron Paul is 'pro botnets' or anything absurd like that, but his policies and philosophy would be more hospitible to their business model than nanny-states and government-monitoring of all communications.

If I had a botnet, why wouldn't I use it to promote my candidate of choice during its free time?

Re:Maybe its form of spammer lobbying

[MobyDisk]

That's like saying that "A vote for candidate X is a vote for terrorism" or "Osama Bin Laden would vote for so-and-so." Spammers like Ron Paul, so vote against him! [Your favorite team's rival] will vote for Ron Paul!

How are Ron Paul's philosophies any better for spammers? People seem to have this idea that a guy who likes a smaller government is okay with everything being legal. (Not that the CAN-SPAM act is any indication that the present government gives a crud about stopping spammers)

Re:Maybe its form of spammer lobbying

[vux984]

That's like saying that "A vote for candidate X is a vote for terrorism" or "Osama Bin Laden would vote for so-and-so." Spammers like Ron Paul, so vote against him! [Your favorite team's rival] will vote for Ron Paul!

No. No its not. Petty idiocy like "A vote for So-and-so is a vote for terrorism." or "a vote for spammers" is one of my pet peeves. Its not black and white. Just because a politician won't vote against gay marriage doesn't mean he's pro-anal-sex. Just because he won't vote national health care doesn't mean he's pro-disease. And just be he won't vote to ban unsolicited email doesn't mean he's pro-spammer.

How are Ron Paul's philosophies any better for spammers? People seem to have this idea that a guy who likes a smaller government is okay with everything being legal.

Its not that he likes smaller government, its that he wouldn't see this as the governments role. Period.

The constitution would have to be read pretty loosely to interpret that it somehow granted the federal government the right to decide under what conditions a person or business contacted you with advertising, sales offers, or even just information.

Spam is not an invasion of privacy. Its your mailbox that you've set to receive mail from anybody. You are free not to have a mailbox. You are free to choose not to open unsolicited mail. You are free to set up a list of people you accept email from and everything else can be routed directly to the trash bin.

If Businesses and ISPs are upset with the resources unsolicited email uses, they are free to SELF-REGULATE the problem. The market can find solutions without government. Ron Paul, at its basic level, wouldn't see regulating spam as a reasonable interpretation of fitting within governments constitutionally mandated roles.

The man voted against the do-not-call-registry. He will not vote to stop spam.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ron Paul is -right- not to support the do-not-call-registry. There were better solutions that didn't require the government making it illegal. We could have implemented a 'telemarketing blacklist' that people could have subscribed to... if a telemarketer tried to call you, and you subscribed to the list, your phone wouldn't ring and the call blocked. And that's just a trivial 'for example'.

Similiarly he would be correct in not banning spam. Spam is a basic technical problem that could be easily solved in a number of ways -if we really wanted to-. The last thing we need is a legislative and regulatory solution to a technical problem.

Solving spam would not be that hard if the market were willing to suffer some transition pain. The reason we're stuck, is on some level, people idiotically want to be able to receive email from anyone under any circumstances, and simultaneously be shielded from receiving email they don't want.

1) Just enforcing SPF would make a huge dent in spam, and we don't have cajones to even do that, because "too many people would be affected". Suck it up. Lets enforce SPF, and don't allow any BS like an SPF record that authorizes any server anywhere.

2) Block users who are infected until they clean up. And block other ISPs that don't.

3) Let the market create domain reputation systems that people can subscribe too. In conjunction with hard SPF enforcement this is going to REALLY cut down on the amount of spam going around. Spammers won't be able to effectively impersonate legitimate domains, and they'll have little success registering their own domains.

4) Require authentication with ISP servers for all sending. ISPs should block port 25 smtp traffic by default on all client accounts including businesses. They should open up 25 on request. The people that need it will ask. The people that don't need it shouldn't have it.

Bottom line, if we as society are that upset about spam we should be telling our ISPs to take the necessary technical steps to stop it. We shouldn't whine at government to get involved and make sure we only get the ema

Re:Maybe its form of spammer lobbying

[MobyDisk]

Its not that he likes smaller government, its that he wouldn't see this as the governments role. Period. Why do people keep putting words in Ron Paul's mouth? I keep seeing posts like "Because Ron Paul believes in smaller government, he would not believe X is government's role" and they literally make "X" equal to anything that is not a literal phrase in the constitution. This is still a democracy, and if the people as a whole believe that spamming is illegal and intrusive, then it should be banned. It is the federal governments role to regulate interstate commerce amongst 1000 other things that this could fall under. Stopping spammers isn't something that requires a big government agency. It doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. I don't see any reason to assume Ron Paul likes spamming.

The constitution would have to be read pretty loosely to interpret that it somehow granted the federal government the right to decide under what conditions a person or business contacted you with advertising, sales offers, or even just information. So then you also think that Ron Paul would allow slandering and false advertising? How about lying under oath? The constitution doesn't say they have the power to stop any of those things. If you follow things that strictly, the government really can't do anything. Not to mention that you seem to think that all the state laws against spamming would magically vanish.

Like many other people, you completely misunderstand libertarianism. Like I said in my message, just because someone believes in smaller government doesn't mean that they believe that everything should be legal. You have vastly over simplified things.

-- And ironically, after you're whole message, you point out how if we eliminated the meager spam laws we have, that the market would find a solution anyway. Wow, you might have actually just convinced me that we should vote for Ron Paul, and that the spammers are right!

Re:Maybe its form of spammer lobbying

[vux984]

I don't see any reason to assume Ron Paul likes spamming.

Me either. I'm not assuming he likes spam.
I'm asserting he doesn't think its the federal governments problem to fix.

So then you also think that Ron Paul would allow slandering and false advertising?

No. Although again, in many cases I'm not sure he would consider it a federal matter.

Like many other people, you completely misunderstand libertarianism. Like I said in my message, just because someone believes in smaller government doesn't mean that they believe that everything should be legal. You have vastly over simplified things.

No. You seem to think I think and said things that I didn't. Based on what you think I said you'd be right. But I didn't say those things. I didn't say Ron Paul liked spam. I didn't say that Ron Paul thinks slander or spam should be legal. You've erected a nice straw man and beaten him down soundly. But that straw man isn't me.

And ironically, after you're whole message, you point out how if we eliminated the meager spam laws we have, that the market would find a solution anyway. Wow, you might have actually just convinced me that we should vote for Ron Paul, and that the spammers are right!

Maybe you should. I think he'd be an excellent president. I don't support all of his views, and I am for a national health care system, which he'd likely never support, etc. But overall the man has impressed me. If nothing else, he has real integrity.

What was being spammed?

[Sensi]

What was the content of the spam? Was it spamming Diggs for Ron Paul articles, comment spam, or did everyone get emails promising if you vote Ron Paul your dick gets bigger?

Re:What was being spammed?

[z-j-y]

I attempted to post the entire spam I got, but slashdot rejected it
  Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
    Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.

I'll see if I can pass by part of the spam

Subject: Ron Paul Eliminates The IRS! sdhr
From: "johan eden"
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:42:00 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain;
        format=flowed;
        charset="iso-8859-1";
        reply-type=original

Hello Scott,
Ron Paul is for the people, unless you want your children to have human implant RFID chips, a National ID card and create a North American Union and see an economic collapse far worse than the great depression. Vote for Ron Paul he speaks the truth and the media and government is afraid of him go to http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul and you will see his large base. Get motivated America, don't believe the lies of the media he has also WON the GOP Debate On Sunday! Value Freedom instead of corporate lies and corruption. Bypass this media blackout they are doing to Ron Paul, tell your family and friends and get involved in a local group at meetup.com make your voice heard! He will end the War In Iraq immediately, He will eliminate the IRS and wasteful government spending, and eliminate the Federal Reserve and restore power to the people and the only person not a member on the CFR. Can any other runner make these claims? ...

sgugfe
gfh
emgv

Re:What was being spammed?

[Pode]

Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't YouTube have some sort of mechanism for removing videos that are promoted by spam? Paul's campaign depends heavily on YoutTube since most reporters won't waste their time on such a long shot candidate. If his videos were flagged as spam and removed, wouldn't that shut him up? That seems to me to be the simplest and most practical motive for hiring a botnet to send such obvious spam. A supporter would have to be so stupid as to defy credibility to think spam like this would HELP their candidate, and while I know that's a common perception of Paul's fans, I'm not prepared to write them off as THAT dumb.

Re:What was being spammed?

[baffled]

I think it was a botnet spammer that watched the film Zeitgeist and is reacting. Zeitgeist is a two-hour film that gets viewers emotionally stirred and talks about: implant RFID, National ID card, NAU, the income tax, the war in Iraq, the CFR, the Federal Reserve. Yes, I'm fairly certain this was sent by someone stirred by the film. Ron Paul is the only candidate even mentioning NAU, so it's only natural.

Some of Zeitgeist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__YFnUfYXZk

Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur

[rednip]

I've said it before, but to me, as a former Republican, Ron Paul represents the party which most people believe they are voting for when they vote Republican. Trouble is that if he actually won, he would try to implement their public platform rather than continue Bush's private one. Also and more importantly, I believe that the leaders of that party need to have a candidate who will allow the many crimes of the last 7 years to go unpunished, so they need a person they already own. (that's also why McCain and Huckabee don't have many 'big' endorsements or money, btw).

forgot to mention: SF Republicans cancel vote

[vsync64]

Check this out: the San Francisco Republicans cancelled their straw poll because there were too many people ready to vote for Ron Paul: http://www.kcrg.com/explorepolitics/?feed=bim&id=12183556 Of note is the fact that Mitt Romney had some supporters waiting in line to vote multiple times.

Re:forgot to mention: SF Republicans cancel vote

[HardCase]

Of note is the fact that Mitt Romney had some supporters waiting in line to vote multiple times.

In Florida. Read your own article:

The Florida Republican straw poll, held last Saturday, became increasingly chaotic as Paul supporters sparred with those of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney over the amount of votes individuals cast.

Though individuals were allowed to purchase up to ten voting tickets for $20 apiece, Paul supporters actively displayed their single tickets while Romney supporters reportedly cashed in multiple stubs.

Re:forgot to mention: SF Republicans cancel vote

[vsync64]

Sorry, you are correct. Romney has stolen several straw polls from Ron Paul, not by drawing multiple supporters as Paul does, but buying multiple votes per person. Thanks for that.

Re:forgot to mention: SF Republicans cancel vote

[groovepapa]

all those paul supporters must have been spam. cyborgs, no doubt.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Archeopteryx]

Amen.

I like their focus on the Gold Standard.

Hilarious.

There is not enough gold on the whole planet to cover the money now in circulation, much less the Nine Trillion dollar debt!

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[IonHand]

So I assume you got your eduction on econmics from the Deporatment of Education?

minor point

[geekoid]

Legally, unsolicited political messages are not considered spam. Unless they try to sell a product.

IN the US as I understand the pertinent federal laws.

Re:minor point

[Psychotria]

Political spam *IS* trying to sell a product. They are trying to buy your vote. I know this is a little pedantic, but they are selling themselves and, therefore, qualify as spam.

Re:minor point

[coryking]

What about using a botnet? Is that okay if it is for political use?

Re:minor point

[QuantumG]

Yeah man. And charities? They're selling good vibrations.

Re:minor point

[evanbd]

What if I'm trying to sell a congresscritter? Enough of them get bought that there has to be a market for spaming about it...

Re:minor point

[Psychotria]

QG, If the charities sent me email without my consent, then yeah... I would qualify that as spam

Re:minor point

[QuantumG]

Blah, I refer to VMWare sending me their newsletter as spam and I asked for that. It's a heavily overused word. But ya see that qualifier the grand-daddy poster used? I'll repeat it here:

Legally, unsolicited political messages are not considered spam. Unless they try to sell a product. See that? See what it says? Legally. That's what we're talking about.

Re:minor point

[siwelwerd]

No, I get emails selling "good vibrations" and those are most definitely not charities...

Re:minor point

[SL Baur]

Is that [using a botnet] okay if it is for political use? Political speech is (in theory, but see below) protected by the 1st amendment as versus advertising (where have all the TV cigarette commercials gone?)

There are now so many restrictions on campaign contributions, etc. that I am sure that a botnet would violate something. For starters, the spam model requires an involuntary donation on the part of the recipient, and in the case of the botnet the involuntary bot. Campaign contributions must not be solicited from non-citizens and if only machine in the botnet is not owned by a US citizen, oops! The involuntary aspect of the donation wouldn't bother the Bush/Clinton/Gores, but would bother a Ron Paul, who I don't believe is accepting matching Federal funds (at least I hope he still isn't). If a particular individual involved in the spamming had already contributed the maximum allowed amount, that would also constitute a violation. Karoshi, if involved, would be most difficult to pin down to a one-time spamming, but probably wouldn't be a technical violation of US campaign finance laws.

I'd say overall, it's a gray, unexplored area and most candidates would be fine with it. The technicalities it might break are places most candidates don't want to go.

My own opinion? He is not directly[1] responsible for this. It's too coercive and unlibertarian-ish. Dr. Paul has made his views on taxation quite clear and refuses to collect his congressional salary. I voted for Dr. Paul the first time he ran for President and if I'm allowed to vote for him again, I will.

[1] It's possible that a misguided individual did it on his behalf, but remember the lesson of the California 23rd congressional district in 1998. The Tom Bordanaro campaign was sunk by 3rd party massively spammed and disgustingly graphic anti-partial birth abortion ads. His opponent, Lois Capps the abortionist, still has that seat.

Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur

[vsync64]

Also and more importantly, I believe that the leaders of that party need to have a candidate who will allow the many crimes of the last 7 years to go unpunished, so they need a person they already own. (that's also why McCain and Huckabee don't have many 'big' endorsements or money, btw).

McCain? If anything he is likely to let them go unpunished. He pretended that having to wear a flak jacket and be escorted by tanks and helicopters to grocery shopping is A-OK. Didn't he cave on torture ("allowing a 'just following orders' defense"), on habeas corpus, and on illegal detentions? Sad to see a good man fall.

Great, more anti women supporters.

[geekoid]

You HAVE read his voting record, right?

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[jcr]

Yes, I've read it. He's the only politician I can remember in my lifetime whose votes match his words 100%.

-jcr

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[jonnythan]

Anti-women supporters? What are you talking about?

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[sethawoolley]

Yes, I've read it. He's the only politician I can remember in my lifetime whose votes match his words 100%.

-jcr If you actually look at his voting record:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

Just take the first item on the list, abortion. He's stated time and time again that abortion policy should be left up to the states to get a wider appeal, but as you can see, he continuously voted to have the federal government intervene in abortion policy.

He's a liar and flip-flopper just like the rest of them.

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[jcr]

He's a liar and flip-flopper just like the rest of them.

Actually, you're the liar. Ron Paul's votes on this issue are consistent with his stated position: he votes against federal funding for abortion (since he votes against federal funding for anything not authorized by the constitution), and he votes to allow the states to set their own policy on the matter.

As for changing his position, the only issue I can name where Ron Paul has changed his stance is on the death penalty: he used to be in favor of it, but given the number of death row convicts who have been exonerated by DNA evidence, he no longer supports it. I don't have a problem with that.

-jcr

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[Pode]

I'm truly impressed with the way you derived Paul's philosophical position on the full implications of tens of thousands of pages of legalese from fewer than 20 characters restricted to Y or N. /snark Seriously, several of those federal interventions in abortion policy that are supposedly fliflops, are votes on banning federal funding for abortions. Which is entirely consistent with the principle that the federal government should not be involved in abortions. Funding = involvement. Consider the possibility that some of that "flipflopping" on abortion may be due to a failure to flipflop on whether the government should be allowed to break the Constitution.

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[sethawoolley]

I'm truly impressed with the way you derived Paul's philosophical position on the full implications of tens of thousands of pages of legalese from fewer than 20 characters restricted to Y or N. /snark I'll respond to your other point to the post above, but on this particular point, it's not true that I've used only those characters. I actually looked at what the bills were. As to the truth of that, my reply to the post above will show that.

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[sethawoolley]

He's a liar and flip-flopper just like the rest of them.

Actually, you're the liar. Ron Paul's votes on this issue are consistent with his stated position: he votes against federal funding for abortion (since he votes against federal funding for anything not authorized by the constitution), and he votes to allow the states to set their own policy on the matter. Here's the summary:

12/06/2006 Abortion Pain Bill NV
05/25/2005 Overseas Military Facilities Abortion Amendment N
04/27/2005 Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act N
10/02/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
06/04/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
07/20/2000 Abortion Funding Amendment N
07/13/2000 Family Planning Assistance Funding amendment N
06/22/2000 Prison Abortion Funding Amendment N
05/18/2000 Oversea Military Abortions Amendment N
04/05/2000 Partial Birth Abortion Act Y
07/29/1999 Abortion Funding Amendment N
06/30/1999 Child Custody Protection Act N
06/09/1999 Overseas Military Abortion Amendment N
06/08/1999 Prohibition of Chemically Induced Abortion Amendment Y
10/08/1998 Contraceptive Amendment Y
08/06/1998 Abortion Funding Amendment N
07/23/1998 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
07/15/1998 Child Custody Protection Act N
06/24/1998 Chemical Inducement of Abortion Amendment Y
05/20/1998 Abortion Private Funding Restoration Amendment N
10/08/1997 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
09/04/1997 International Family Planning amendment Y
03/20/1997 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
02/13/1997 Population Planning bill N Here's the summary:

Yes, some are bans against funding, which is consistent with his position, but I'm going to cull to show the ones that specifically go to my point:

10/02/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
06/04/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
04/05/2000 Partial Birth Abortion Act Y
07/23/1998 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
10/08/1997 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
03/20/1997 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y Note that during these votes, the Roe v. Wade decision was in effect as the supreme law of the land due to the Supreme Court, rendering all of these yes votes a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Yes, they later upheld the most recent vote, but he knew he wouldn't get the votes until Bush's stacking of the Supreme Court happened.

So then the question comes up -- when is it OK to violate the Constitution? Is the Constitution interpreted by people or by the Supreme Court?

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[jcr]

Note that during these votes, the Roe v. Wade decision was in effect as the supreme law of the land due to the Supreme Court, rendering all of these yes votes a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Very interesting spin you have there, but you haven't succeeded in showing that Ron Paul's votes are inconsistent with his words. A supreme court decision isn't a "supreme law of the land", (as you put it) it's a determination of a particular case, which can set a precedent which may or may not be upheld in subsequent decisions.

Try again.

-jcr

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[sethawoolley]

Note that during these votes, the Roe v. Wade decision was in effect as the supreme law of the land due to the Supreme Court, rendering all of these yes votes a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Very interesting spin you have there, but you haven't succeeded in showing that Ron Paul's votes are inconsistent with his words. Well, I guess you missed it then. That he voted against any facet of abortion is a violation of his position, which is to leave it to the states. If he's not going to leave it to the states, as his record shows, which I pasted into my comment, he's lying.

I thought that part was obvious, but there, I spelled it out for you.

A supreme court decision isn't a "supreme law of the land", (as you put it) it's a determination of a particular case, which can set a precedent which may or may not be upheld in subsequent decisions. Wow, that's totally false. Their decisions are final. The buck stops there. It isn't JUST a precedent. They overturn laws with the stroke of a pen. They don't have to wait for the law to change. The law is overturned immediately.

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[jcr]

That he voted against any facet of abortion is a violation of his position, which is to leave it to the states.

Nonsense. His intention to return jurisdiction over abortion to the states doesn't require him to ignore the fact that today, it's a matter over which the federal government claims power.

Their decisions are final.

Oh really? I'm sure that many people in this country will be very distressed to learn that Plessy v. Ferguson is still the law of the land, then. So much for integration. (Oh, wait.. Plessey was overturned in Brown v. Topeka.)

Try again.

-jcr

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[Breakfast Pants]

What was his "anti-woman" vote? That states should be in control of the legality of abortion?

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[evanbd]

As for changing his position, the only issue I can name where Ron Paul has changed his stance is on the death penalty: he used to be in favor of it, but given the number of death row convicts who have been exonerated by DNA evidence, he no longer supports it. I don't have a problem with that.

That's why I have an issue with the label flip-flopper in general -- our politicians should be willing to reevaluate their positions when new data comes to light. There is nothing to be ashamed of in changing your mind, assuming there is a reason for that. I don't want a politician who stubbornly holds on to a bad idea long after it has become obvious to everyone else how bad an idea it is. (Pretending to hold an opinion because it's popular, or expressing an opinion you don't hold, however, is an entirely different and unrelated matter.)

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[sethawoolley]

That he voted against any facet of abortion is a violation of his position, which is to leave it to the states.

Nonsense. His intention to return jurisdiction over abortion to the states doesn't require him to ignore the fact that today, it's a matter over which the federal government claims power. What? Huh? Is that your excuse? I'm in awe. He votes on everything else that the feds claim power over pretty consistently against, completely ignoring your logic above. For that I'm pretty impressed by him. That I found a pretty bad hole in his program doesn't mean those other actions are wrong. The feds are WAY too powerful, and I consider myself pretty far left (though, a decentralizationist left). In fact, he's probably the closest of any of the mainstream candidates to my positions for what the federal government should be doing, Democrats included, though I'm registered Green. I may find it useful to vote for him for the federal government so long as he never touches what the state and local governments do, which I actually believe, other than on the abortion issue, he would do. That he has this flaw is what gives me pause.

Their decisions are final.

Oh really? I'm sure that many people in this country will be very distressed to learn that Plessy v. Ferguson is still the law of the land, then. So much for integration. (Oh, wait.. Plessey was overturned in Brown v. Topeka.)

Try again.

-jcr Plessy was the law of the land until Brown. What's your point? Anybody who violated Plessy (although the nature of Plessy is hard to violate, due to its construction and decision) while Plessy was in effect violated the Constitution. They should only have passed the laws after it had been tested by the Supreme Court. As a strict constructionists, you would have to defer to the Supreme Court on the matter before declaring anything Constitutional or not, since that's one of the things the Constitution strictly defines.

There's "shouldn't be unconstitutional/constitutional" and there's "what is unconstitutional/constitutional". The former is what you and I can hold opinions on. The latter is the purview of ONLY the Supreme Court once it has come to a decision on it, as it had done in Roe v Wade. If the Supreme Court hasn't heard it, then it's the lower court's temporary purview, but the question isn't definitely answered until the Supreme Court hears it and decides. And then it is only in effect until and if they overturn it. It's an interesting secular system that goes against what people typically think of if they are religious, but I happen to think it's pretty well thought out!

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[jcr]

Is that your excuse?

I need no excuses. You're the one who's tried to tar Ron Paul as a liar, and failed to do so. Your claim, your burden of proof.

Feel free to keep trying though, I'm enjoying watching you dig your hole.

-jcr

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[sethawoolley]

Is that your excuse?
I need no excuses. You're the one who's tried to tar Ron Paul as a liar, and failed to do so. Your claim, your burden of proof. I already met your burden of proof with his contradiction: that he's for non-intervention, specifically on the abortion matter, with what states should be doing ala a more strict interpretation of the tenth amendment than the Supreme Court holds (which is ok, I'm fine with that as it's not a violation in itself), which he stated in the CNN/Youtube debate, for example. All the while, he has a voting record of intervention in every instance Dilation and Extraction came up on whether or not to be banned. As far as I know, that's not a power of the federal government. The commerce clause doesn't provide that, for example. I would think the tenth amendment would take over. States can handle their own murders -- why not abortion policies?

This is the third time I've repeated myself, in a slightly different way, just so that it's in the same post and that perhaps it might sink in if presented slightly differently. At this point, you can choose to believe whatever you want. I know that most reasonable people will look at your responses to my posts and ponder at how efficiently you've selectively quoted me and not even addressed my arguments. At this point, probably the majority just think you're trolling.

Consider the burden of proof as still being on me all you want, but if you want to convince people that I haven't proven it, then you should actually try rebutting them directly. In another post, you did try once, but you just created a huge contradiction with the rest of his program. As that's a contradiction, I'm not left with anything to argue against from your angle.

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[jcr]

I already met your burden of proof with his contradiction

You did nothing of the kind, and you can't hide your failure to do so by increasing the volume of your blather. Ron Paul is an honest man, and you are a liar, trying to smear him.

-jcr

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[sethawoolley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJs1wfCTjRw

I'll transcribe this for you:

Journey: Arlington, Tx asks: "For all the politically pro-life candidates. In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with, and what should her punishment be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?"

Moderator: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.

Ron Paul: You know, it's not a federal function to determine the penalties for a crime of abortion if it is illegal in a state. It's up to the state, it's up to the juries. And, it should be up to discretion because it's not an easy issue to deal with. But the first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need.

But ...

Moderator: Should a woman be charged with a crime?

Ron Paul: I don't personally think so. I'm an O.B. Doctor, and I practiced medicine for 30 years, and I of course never saw one time when a medically necessary abortion had to be done. But, so I think it certainly is a crime, but I also understand the difficulties. I think when you're talking about third trimester deliberate abortion and partial-birth abortions, I mean there has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. But I really think it's the person who commits the crime, and I think that is the abortionist.

Moderator: So you're saying a doctor should be punished. What sort of punishment should they get?

Ron Paul: Well, I think it's up to the states. I'm not in the state... I'm not running for governor, and I think it's different, and I don't think it should be all fifty states the same way, so I don't think it should be up to the President to decide that.

Remember the key quotes from above:

Regarding abortion in general:
"But the first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it."
Regarding punishment:
"I don't think it should be all fifty states the same way"
"Well, I think it's up to the states."

Now I'll paste what he voted for from the vote smart website. You'll note that all of these bills impose fines and up to two years in prison. Ron Paul thought, when he voted for these bills, that it was the role of the federal government to intervene in what he now says is a state matter and establish a penalty for doctors who were willing to perform D&I abortions.

All are from the abortion section here: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

10/02/2003

Official Title of Legislation:

S 3: A bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

Project Vote Smart Synopsis:

Vote to adopt a conference report that prohibits any individual from knowingly performing the procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, in which a fetus is partially delivered before it is aborted.

Highlights:

- Permit the procedure if the life of the woman were in danger

- Penalize anyone who illegally performed the procedure with fines and up to two years imprisonment

06/04/2003

Official Title of Legislation:

HR 760: To prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

Project Vote Smart Synopsis:

Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit any individual from knowingly performing the procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, in which a fetus is partially delivered before it is aborted. The only exception is if the life of the woman is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

Highlights:

- Allows for criminal prosecution of the individual that performs the act

- Prohibits prosecution of the woman on whom the abortion was performed

04/05/2000

Official Tit

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[jcr]

You must concede that on at least this issue, he's at least flip-flopped,

Nope. He's consistently said that he opposes abortion, and that it should be a matter for state jurisdiction. Your frantic attempts to twist his words do not make him a liar, they make you a liar.

-jcr

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[BruceCage]

From Washington Post: Election '08: Talk With the Candidates:

Los Angeles: You voted for the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. Where in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the power to regulate medical procedures?

Rep. Ron Paul: I think that's a good point, because I don't brag about that vote. People could argue that there's a contradiction there. My only argument was that abortion-on-demand nationally was created by a court order, not Congress, so I was trying to reverse that. I would not argue, though, that it was a perfect way of doing that. If the court had not already ruled and legalized it, I would not have voted that way.

And from his speech in the house dated June 4, 2003 concerning the partial birth abortion ban:

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

[...]

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[sethawoolley]

Thanks Bruce, for finding these quotes. The second one makes me feel better, but the first one, not.

I am primarily arguing that there's a contradiction, and even he knows it, but it seems I have to defend my statement that he's lying, which I'll talk about shortly. First, regarding his first quote, his vote to ban DI abortion isn't a vote to "leave it up to the states". So it's a poor way of trying to reverse it. About his lies, he lies when he says if the court had not already ruled and legalized it, he would not have voted that way. My links date from many years before the ruling as well, and he voted for them all!

So, again, either ignorant of his past actions, or a liar.

In the second quote, he just sells out, for it might save an innocent human life. There are plenty of things the feds could do to save innocent lives, but it simply should not have the power to do so.

He's flailing for a reason to not be opposed by the pro-lifers in his Texas back-yard. Now that he's going for a much broader base and he doesn't have to choose between yes and no (although he could have just abstained!), he's turned to lying.

It sounds like the best case for him is that he's just a sellout on the issue. His speech on June 4 even indicates that he sold out on it. But the quote in the Washington Post directly contradicts his past behavior, so I'm still inclined to say he's just a simple liar.

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[sethawoolley]

You must concede that on at least this issue, he's at least flip-flopped,

Nope. He's consistently said that he opposes abortion, and that it should be a matter for state jurisdiction. Your frantic attempts to twist his words do not make him a liar, they make you a liar. OK, baby steps here. We're half way there. Now, go look at his voting record (GP post, the one you were supposed to be replying to). Scroll down using that scrollbar you have, probably on the right side of your screen. Yeah, those half dozen FEDERAL bills he voted for. OK, now read them. I'll wait here for you to read them...

See those bills? How could he vote for those bills that are federal jurisdictional bans and believe it's a matter for state jurisdiction (as you admit!) and not federal jurisdiction?

You see, he can't! Bruce below even points out that he's admitting that it's a flaw. Read his post and my reply and continue the discussion there (that is, if we were having a discussion -- I'm not convinced you're at the mental age where you're capable of having one).

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[jcr]

It does not follow that because one believes that a matter should be under state jurisdiction, that it must be ignored in the meantime.

Keep trying, sunshine. You're doing a great job of showing just how feeble your case is.

Ron Paul is an honest man, and you are a lying weasel.

-jcr

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[sethawoolley]

It does not follow that because one believes that a matter should be under state jurisdiction, that it must be ignored in the meantime. Strawman, as that's not a proper characterization of the argument -- but it's not even "my" argument, it's Ron Paul's argument.

It does follow that it should be ignored _by the federal government_ of the United States under the Tenth Amendment if it should be under state jurisdiction.

But even if that weren't Ron Paul's personal underlying argument, I quoted Ron Paul saying that it specifically wasn't the role of the federal government! No need to do any syllogisms from state's rights, as his position is already clear that the syllogism holds true (or he came upon it some other way that is completely novel) and already stated the conclusion explicitly.

Do you want to attack the argument directly now, or are you trying to win side-arguments to save face?

If you want, I'll give you a freebie on this argument and we can get back to the main one. How much of a handicap do you need? Just let me know, I'll be happy to oblige. I can even wait for you to sober up from whatever you're inhaling or imbibing. Again, just let me know what assistance you need.

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[JoeFromPhilly]

Great, more anti women supporters.

Well we're all obviously either anti woman or pro baby killing. Of course, they both sound so appealing that I often have trouble deciding which camp I'm in.

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[AK Marc]

It does not follow that because one believes that a matter should be under state jurisdiction, that it must be ignored in the meantime.

It is currently up to the states. The states can write whatever laws they want. He voted for a federal law that removed states rights in order to make it a federal crime to perform an abortion, in direct contradiction to his statements in the debate. That makes him a liar.

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[AK Marc]

Ron Paul's votes on this issue are consistent with his stated position: he votes against federal funding for abortion (since he votes against federal funding for anything not authorized by the constitution), and he votes to allow the states to set their own policy on the matter.

You are Ron Paul are the liars. Ron Paul votes to take away state's rights in order to force penalties against abortions. He doesn't allow states to set their policy, he votes to take away their rights to set policy.

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[onemorechip]

he votes against federal funding for anything not authorized by the constitution

Utter nonsense. The Constitution does not and cannot authorize spending on specific items. Instead it empowers Congress with the authority to make those decisions.

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[jcr]

It is currently up to the states.

Not paying attention, are you? State jurisdiction over abortion has been usurped by the federal government ever since Roe v. Wade.

That makes him a liar.

Bullshit.

-jcr

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[jcr]

How much of a handicap do you need?

You know, you don't strengthen your position in any way just by becoming more pompous and patronizing. You are a lying weasel.

-jcr

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[rtechie]

he votes against federal funding for abortion (since he votes against federal funding for anything not authorized by the constitution), and he votes to allow the states to set their own policy on the matter.

This is incorrect. He voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban which banned the PROCEDURE, not Federal funding. He also voted on the Chemically-Produced Abortion amendment which would have prevented distribution of the "morning after" pill in the United States.

Ron Paul is for "state's rights" only when that position would support his social agenda, like most so-called "state's rights" advocates.

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[jcr]

Oh, oh. You are weaseling your way out.

Like hell I am.

Paul is a congressman who's on the record as 1) opposing abortion and 2) believing that abortion should be a matter for the states. A bill to ban a particular late-term procedure comes up for a vote. Should he 1) vote for it, thus upholding his stated position, or 2) vote against it, contradicting his stated position? There is no third option (like returning the matter to the states) available in this vote. Now, the bloviator who calls Paul a liar may claim that voting on this bill at all makes him a liar, but wishing doesn't make it so.

-jcr

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[AK Marc]

But that's not what he said in the debates, so you and he are both liars.

Re:Great, more anti women supporters.

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Voting to restrict abortion, voting to assure the right to an abortion, and voting to remove the federal government from the matter entirely are three completely different things.

A vote to penalize abortion is not conducive to removing the government from the matter entirely. It would have been more conducive to his libertarian philosophy to vote "no".

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[CRCulver]

Two of the most typo-filled posts in this discussion are by Ron Paul supporters. You are really making your man look reputable.

Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur

[geekoid]

good man fall, or just showing his true colors?

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[fastest fascist]

'cos I'm SURE those werent intentional misspellings...

Joe Job

[jcr]

Not much more to say...

-jcr

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, not at $1 and ounce, no. But at some multiple. If it has to be $2,800 per ounce then people will not both exchanging dollars for gold with the government, because they can get gold cheaper elsewhere. But the effect of tying the dollar to *something* will be just as strong. At least if we stick with it, it won't be $3,100 next year and $3,300 the year after that. Just because a return to the gold standard can't undo the last 90+ years of inflation is no reason not to do it.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[jcr]

Cause basing your currency on the pricing of a commodity is somehow more secure than the faith and trust of the government.

Had a look at just how much the currency has been inflated since the Federal Reserve was established? For extra credit, can you tell us who benefits from inflation?

Great understanding of economics there, pal.

Ever heard the phrase "not worth a Continental"? Any idea what it refers to?

The gold and silver clause was written into the constitution because the framers had recent, painful experience with the dangers of fiat currency.

-jcr

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[stickytar]

Mod parent up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNH5Xy8_0NM

russian origin

[Newton IV]

That's interesting because Nenastnyj means something like "cloudy weather man" in Russian.

Re:russian origin

[LanceUppercut]

In Russian it means "stormy" as applied to weather. However, the look and feel of the transliteration points to someone from more "Western" parts of Eastern Europe. Poland? Czech? Romanian? Russian - unlikely.

Re:russian origin

[kmike]

Some news outlets have reported that the botnet was of Ukranian origin.

Also check out this posting by nenastnyj promoting the OCR/CAPTCHA recognition service:
http://gofuckbiz.com/showthread.php?p=10620#post10620

Re:russian origin

[21mhz]

Why, it's quite common for Russian laymen to use 'j' for '', especially when preceded by '' which gets 'y'.

Another outsourcing job masterfully performed by the Russian Business Network? :)

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

agreed the man is a little on the wacky side.

We need a real independent candidate.

Vote Smart in 2008

[reporter]

About 61% of American voters votes along party lines. Their attitude is, "I do not care whether the position is correct. If my party supports it, then I support it." Worse, within party primaries (like the ones that will begin soon in early 2008), voters tend to choose candidates based on gotcha's, glamor, and glitz. A candidate who can crack a witty joke during the debate can easily reel in millions of mindless voters.

Clearly, this incident with the spammer supporting Ron Paul will be spun, by his competitors, into a gotcha.

Please do your yourself -- and your nation -- a favor. Avoid the above method of selecting political candidates. Ignore gotcha's, glamor, and glitz. Do not vote along party lines.

Instead, research the voting history, the policy proposals, and the honesty of the candidates in the 2008 race for president. You can easily find this information at the quality news sites like "The Washington Post". Hopefully, Rupert Murdoch will open the web site of the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) to the public before the election in 2008. The WSJ has some of the best in-depth reporting in the industry, but the WSJ web site is currently open only to subscribers.

Re:Vote Smart in 2008

[Digypro]

and why would mr. murdoch do that? Isn't he basically a neo-con?

Re:Vote Smart in 2008

[EvanED]

Their attitude is, "I do not care whether the position is correct. If my party supports it, then I support it."
Or maybe their attitude is "this party's platform is consistently closer to my viewpoint, so I'll make it my party. Hey look, the candidate running as my party has a platform that is closer to my view than the other guy. What a surprise."

It shouldn't be a warning sign that most people vote along party lines... it should be expected. Actually, I'm surprised it's as low as 61%.

(Sure, some people, maybe even many people don't look at the platform of the candidates, but at least for the bigger races, I doubt that's the common case.)

Re:Vote Smart in 2008

[daigu]

Maybe you missed the memo, but we don't select candidates. People with money that donate to candidates select candidates. There is a reason people are talking about Mitt, Rudy, Hillary and Barack rather than Ron and Dennis, and it's about one thing - money. And those "donating" that money? You don't think they might want something from their investment?

So, let's dispense with those niave notions that people need to ignore gotcha's, glamor, and glitz. People should wake up to the fact that no matter who gets into office, you're still stuck with government; government that is in the pockets of the people that make sure their candidates win their office - by donating money.

You know what 1/millions of voters is? It's a statistical nullity. There is no weaker political weapon than the ballot box. Vote Smart in 2008? It's like making a healthy choice between Coke and Pepsi. They're are both bad for your health. Substitute Democrat and Republican and the same applies.

Re:Vote Smart in 2008

[gad_zuki!]

>"this party's platform is consistently closer to my viewpoint, so I'll make it my party. Hey look, the candidate running as my party has a platform that is closer to my view than the other guy. What a surprise."

This is digg,err slashdot. To get modded up you need to develop an attitude of hatred toward common people and come up with dismissing comments about their behaviors. You must also support ron paul. Your comment is too logical and insightful for this crowd.

Re:Vote Smart in 2008

[jmdc]

The survey you link to doesn't support your claim about 61% of Americans not caring about positions. The survey asked participants if they think of themselves as democrat, republican, or independent. If a party was given, they were asked if they are a strong or not very strong democrat/republican. If instead of naming a party, they said they were independent, they were asked if they lean towards a party. The most recent results are: 10% independent, 29% leaning independent, 28% weak partisan, 33% strong partisan.

What I take away from the data is that two thirds of the country doesn't identify strongly with either party. I don't think it says anything about voters being mindless. Even for the third of people who are strong democrats or republicans, it is still very possible that those people considered the issues and realized that they strongly agree with whichever party. Voter motivation is an interesting question, but it is not addressed in that survey.

I also disagree with your comments on the primary process. I don't have any research to back this up, but it seems like common sense to say that voters in primaries and caucuses tend to be some of the most politically savvy citizens. Your mindless voters that are getting reeled in don't go to caucuses and don't watch primary debates.

To sum up, I think that Americans take their votes seriously and are not mindless.

Re:Vote Smart in 2008

[DrLang21]

I know a guy that works the polls. He once had someone ask where the party line vote was on the Primary ballot.

Re:Vote Smart in 2008

[sjs132]

About 61% of American voters votes along party lines. Their attitude is, "I do not care whether the position is correct. If my party supports it, then I support it."

I mostly agree with this. But... How does one choose the party or affiliation? Nobody ever approached me and "ASKED" me to join one party or the other... It was an autonomous choice that I made at voting age, based on my (preceived) value matches with one party or the other. There seems to definatly be oposite spectrums when it comes to the two party system, but I believe if you opened yourself up to more than the "two" big money party, you'd see better matches with your value belief system than what you get now with D's or R's...

By choosing Either of the big two, you have to bite the bullet when it comes to certain issues... You may be prochoice, but hate government assisted wealfare programs. Which one wins your head's battle for control of the vote may be determains by upbringing, education, environment, ALONG with canadite inspired flash and show, etc..

Personally, I believed myself a Republican for YEARS... until I found other parties out there... Now I'm just confused. I guess I'm more towards a libitarien(sp?).. But It is still a change in progress.

Re:Vote Smart in 2008

[Nimey]

If his Faux News is any example, he'll release only part of the archive to the public. Coincidentally, that part makes Christofascist-wing Republicans look good and Democrats and moderate Republicans look bad.

Re:Vote Smart in 2008

[Omestes]

Actually politics is like religion, most people default to the view of their parents/household. Well "most" is relative, being that only around 40-50% of eligible voters actually vote.

I think though, that you are somewhat correct, and possibly growing more and more correct as things go on. I think that the family alignment is going away slowly, as is evident in the apparent increasing polarization of voting blocs (red and blue, or whatnot). I say apparent because I think the polarization idea is fallacious, I think the voters are growing more centrist, or moderated, which would also show the same polarization, as people moving to the extremes of the party. This is backed by the fact that most of the "red vs. blue" margins in the last Presidential election were around 10%, or under, between the victor and the loser. This would seem to indicate that people are voting less along party lines. (Yes, congress and the house still do, but thats another story).

I think this just shows that both parties are broken, and have ceased, at some recent point, to represent the people. Looking at the current crop of presidential hopefuls, I can see this. They all fail, no one is really satisfied with any of them.

Re:Vote Smart in 2008

[Zeio]

The only one with a history in the race is Ron Paul. Everyone other person in the race flip flops or has no real policy. Ron Paul has a had the same message for 30 years. In fact in an interview he said he was surprised by the sudden popularity because he has been doing and saying the same thing for 30 years.

Freedom is popular. Peace is popular. We are sick of being ruled by the military industrial complex and its propaganda wing, the MSM. We are rejecting authoritarianism. We want our freedom and liberty back, and peace and prosperity and to be paid in a dollar that is worth something and not printed to bail out reckless banks and Wall St.

Eh? what about the donations?

[TekGnos]

So what about all of the donations coming into Ron Pauls website? Spam as well? If so, I want some of that spam in my inbox!!

Re:Eh? what about the donations?

[Brandybuck]

If Ron Paul does manage to win some primaries, I fully expect the mainstream media to blame it on spammers. Sigh.

Re:Eh? what about the donations?

[ds4081]

Here, Here! Give me some of that Spam. And Go Ron Paul! the only one with any logic and sanity to his thinking.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Anonymous Coward]

you wouldn't know what racism is, if it bit you on the foot.

most people under 25 don't know what racism is....they know what they've been told racism is...

they mistake the common behavior of all homo sapiens to "prejudge".

I prejudge all the time, so do you.

I might even say something to you about my prejudgements...and it might hurt your feelings, or offend you.

You'll label it racism. And like millions upon millions of generation Y'ers and forward, you'll be wrong.

The Slashdot Moderation Game

[CaptainPatent]

With your official host: CaptainPatent!
Hello folks and welcome to today's second round of The Slashdot Moderation game where we take the long way of saying Mod Parent Down.
We've seen a lot of trolls, flamebaiters and thread hijackers today, but we work hard to only bring you the top-tier. Tonight's guest is explosivejared,
Explosive Jared writes:

I told you all Ron Paul was a saint. Ron Paul would never stoop to spamming. A great start, will this turn into an Ironic statement, a joke, an insightful look into Ron Paul... mystery is afoot and my attention is gathered!

He is right on par with a god, in fact he may be a god (the tests are still being run). oh, we may have a problem. Bringing religion into a Slashdot debate is a hot topic. Maybe if you give us a link to these "god tests" you won't scare your audience away!

Any of you jerks who thought that this stuff was official hate the constitution and what to see the the declaration of independence used as toilet paper. Well, I don't quite understand you but it sounds like you just brought politics and religion together. Warning sir, you are headed for a mega-disaster. You may not be able to bail out of this one. For karma's sake say something witty, something intelligent, SOMETHING!

I hate anyone who thinks any ill of Ron "OUR MESSIAH" PAUL!! GET IT! Wow... I was panicked too, but man, I think you cracked wide open on that one. I tried to help, but unfortunately your Karma was just swallowed by a nuclear reaction between religion and politics. While Slashdot is currently banning your fuzzy-ass to the underside of a bridge, I will invite you and everyone else to join us for another installment of...
The Slashdot Moderation Game!

Re:The Slashdot Moderation Game

[explosivejared]

Well I wished I would have faired better about in the moderation game, I wasn't really lampooning Paul himself as much as the foolhardy zeal some feel for him. I'm man enough to handle the karma hit. Look at my uid, I don't plan on getting mod points any time soon.

Ron Paul is a nice guy and he sees right through a lot of the crap, it's just he holds to some pretty wacky things. The fact that he voted against divestment from Sudan, all the while preaching non-intervention in conflicts proves to me that he holds the same foolish trust in businesses as die hard communists hold in the government. A healthy distaste and wariness towards government is key, but it has to be healthy. Ron Paul's wariness is dangerous. Slashdot is the first place to come to here whining about net neutrality and the monopolistic nature of MS, however a good many would see Ron Paul to the presidency all the while not realizing the sort of crap they complain about so often is going to get worse. Free markets just simply don't exist. Regulation is necessary. This is one basic point that Paul fails to see, and it's a pretty important fact at that.

Well CaptainPatent that's my attempt at an insightful look at Ron Paul.

Re:The Slashdot Moderation Game

[CaptainPatent]

No hard feelings. Apparently the Slashdot Moderation Game didn't fare well either. Not quite sure why, but I do agree that Ron Paul is one of the better republican candidates.

Re:The Slashdot Moderation Game

[CaptainPatent]

Parent isn't a troll! That's actually pretty funny, and very true too!

Re:The Slashdot Moderation Game

[kiddailey]

If I know one thing about Ron Paul, it is that he never makes decisions in as much as a vacuum of simplicity as you seem to think. Many things that he votes for may look wacky, but if you listen to him explain WHY he choose what he did, you will see that each decision is carefully weighed and measured using the constitution and his principles as guides.

He has also stated that there are places where competition will not or cannot exist, primarily because of government placed monopolies. Stating that he just thinks free markets are the answer for everything and that there should be no regulation is over simplifying his views and misquoting him.

Sadly, you're doing as much of a disservice to our presidential election as the media is.

Re:The Slashdot Moderation Game

[explosivejared]

"Government-placed" monopolies present problems, but not as much say as regular old natural monopolies. Don't kid yourself into believing that the hand of the government is the worst thing distorting the market. Greed drives anti-competitive practice like nothing else. It also drives a lot of other nasty business practices, eg company stores, price gouging, etc., that without government regulation would be very bad for society. Sure MS and the natural monopolies of the Telcos hurt business, but at least they don't physically exploit the land and their labor like coal companies used to sans-regulation. You are a "disservice" for the belief that the government is the primary preventer of free markets. They just don't exist, period. Without some sort of protection, the public leaves themselves open to exploitation.

Re:The Slashdot Moderation Game

[kiddailey]

Whose post are you replying too? It certainly isn't mine.

I did not say, nor did Ron say that the government is the primary preventer of free markets. Nor did I say it was the worst thing distorting the market.

I said: "there are places where competition will not or cannot exist, primarily because of government placed monopolies" More specifically, I'm talking about things such as power and water, telephone, cable, postal, etc. Some of these are arguably good candidates for a government imposed monopoly.

I did not say, nor did Ron say that there should be no regulation.

I said: "Stating that he just thinks free markets are the answer for everything and that there should be no regulation is over simplifying his views and misquoting him."

No offense, but it seems that your misunderstanding of Ron's positions is simply due to not really listening to what he is/I am saying.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[Steve Baker]

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but assuming you're not, then have you ever heard of hyper-inflation? It happens -- usually when a government is heavily in debt and wishes to pay off its obligations by making lots of money. Not that that would ever happen here, after all, we're only something like 9 trillion in debt -- couch cushion change.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[feepness]

There is not enough gold on the whole planet to cover the money now in circulation, much less the Nine Trillion dollar debt! And at one point there was. And now there isn't (if you used the original prices), why is that? Who benefits?

It's sad to see the state of affairs that make people hate/fear Ron Paul so much. Is he a perfect candidate? No, of course not! Is he more perfect than the others? This internet bot thinks so.

Spammer lobbying for property rights

[Harmonious Botch]

...his policies and philosophy would be more hospitible to their business model... Ummm...not meaning to be impolite, but are you on crack? The whole problem with spam is that it intrudes on someone else's private property. Ron Paul is a very strong defender of private property. He would be their worst nightmare.

Re:Spammer lobbying for property rights

[Sergeant Pepper]

Now if you could manage to get an amendment to the Constitution that states that the will of the people is that the Federal Government move to block spam you might actually get Ron's support. Yeah, just like how Ron Paul supports the 16th Amendment!

Re:Spammer lobbying for property rights

[justinlee37]

Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to exercise it.

Re:Spammer lobbying for property rights

[vux984]

Ummm...not meaning to be impolite, but are you on crack? The whole problem with spam is that it intrudes on someone else's private property. Ron Paul is a very strong defender of private property. He would be their worst nightmare.

Ron Paul is all for privacy in the sense that he would never authorize government to monitor citizens at large. But in the same breath he would never authorize government to regulate the communications other businesses, eterprises, or citizens would send to you either. Including advertisments, sales offers, unsolicited email, or spam.

Think I'm wrong? Remember the "Do not call list"? Well, when the FTC imposed it the telemarketing industry responded arguing that the FTC had no such authority to impose such a system, and a judge *agreed* with the telemarketing industry. So what do you think happened next?

Well, a bill was introduced in Congress to specifically authorize the FTC to create the do-not-call-list. It passed Congress 412-8, and it passed the senate 95-0. The 'people' had spoken, and our right to have dinner without being tele-offered a long distance plan was established!

Would it surprise you to know that Ron Paul, your champion of privacy, was one of those 8 that voted AGAINST authorizing the FTC to create the do-not-call-list? Don't beleive me? Look it up.

Here's some links to get you started - some background:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/congress.no.call/index.html
and

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929
Section: "Technology and Communication", Date: 09/25/2003, Bill: "Do-Not-Call-Registry Bill"

Or you can take my word for it: He voted "No".

I'm quite confident he'd vote *against* any bill that proposed the government some how step in and regulate email of ANY kind, including spam.

Re:Spammer lobbying for property rights

[YojimboJango]

"I'm quite confident he'd vote *against* any bill that proposed the government some how step in and regulate email of ANY kind, including spam."

You say this like it's a bad thing. You actually want the government reading your mail?
Ron Paul does not want the government involved in screening our phone calls for us. He does not want the government screening our emails. It's not the governments job to do these things. That way lies a nanny state.

I am on the do-not-call list and guess what. I still get calls during dinner. This is your government at work. If the government stepped in to stop spam they would also take steps to enforce that you got the email that they deemed was not spam, and our in boxes would be flooded.

Then again I'm not retarded about typing my email address into every ad offering free porn and normally only get 3 spam messages a month. Maybe it's just that I don't see spam as a big enough problem to demand that the government read all my email for my protection.

Re:Spammer lobbying for property rights

[vimh42]

"I'm quite confident he'd vote *against* any bill that proposed the government some how step in and regulate email of ANY kind, including spam."

That's all fine and good. It would be nice if Do-Not-Call type polices were done on the State level. With regards to Spam. Federal law has failed. Unfortunately I don't think State law would fare any better.

Re:Spammer lobbying for property rights

[vux984]

You say this like it's a bad thing. You actually want the government reading your mail?

I never said it was like a bad thing. If you read all my posts in this subthread you'll see that I am actually in full agreement with the government NOT regulating email communication.

Re:Spammer lobbying for property rights

[vux984]

Spam will not be solved by legal remedies. Spam will be solved by technical solutions. We already have abundant technical solutions. We just don't have the will to implement them, 'because we might lose some legitimate mail during the transition', and security is always at odds with convenience.

I mean, a simple domain reputation system coupled with strict enforcement of SPF, and blocking mail for which SPF hasn't been setup, or for which SPF has been setup too permissively would make a huge dent.

All ISPs should also:
1) Block all outbound port 25 smtp from their clients that doesn't go to their own mail server. Business customers (and perhaps even residential customers should be allowed to ask that this limit be removed from their account, if they wish to run their own mail server.)

2) Require smtp authentication on all smtp mail from their clients to the ISP server. Not negotiable. Not having this is almost as bad as open relays when considering how some botnets operate.

3) Set limits on hourly, daily, monthly email volume for all their clients. Again lets clients negotiate higher limits if they need them. For residential clients, instead of letting them up their limits, set it up so they can even self-authorize one-time amounts as needed. I normally send less than 100 email per day. And I'd be fine with a 100 email per day limit. If I need to send out a newsletter to 5000 people for a client, let me login to my ISP via a form and pre-auth sending 5k mails.

Do all that, and most spam would be a distant memory.

Its OK, Bots can vote too!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Just hook the botnet up to Diebold machines and you can do away with pesky human voters.

Makes sense

[Yurka]

I guess that the only thing left for Russians is to try and influence elections in the US, since they had absolutely no chance to do that at home.

Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur

[kestasjk]

Also and more importantly, I believe that the leaders of that party need to have a candidate who will allow the many crimes of the last 7 years to go unpunished, so they need a person they already own. (that's also why McCain and Huckabee don't have many 'big' endorsements or money, btw).

McCain? If anything he is likely to let them go unpunished. He pretended that having to wear a flak jacket and be escorted by tanks and helicopters to grocery shopping is A-OK. Didn't he cave on torture ("allowing a 'just following orders' defense"), on habeas corpus, and on illegal detentions? Sad to see a good man fall. You should watch BBC's Why Democracy Taxi to the Dark Side, a documentary on allegations of torture in US terrorist interrogation prisons. It repeatedly showed McCain arguing against the use of torture, and holding the military to account during hearings (it's not a pro-McCain documentary though, McCain was only mentioned a few times). They used it to make the point that if McCain, who was a Vietnam POW, doesn't think torture works he probably knows best.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[morgan_greywolf]

Correct. Racism != prejudice. Racism is a belief that your race is superior to that of others. Usually this also means that you think your race should get preferential treatment over others, but that's not necessarily so. Prejudice is just that -- prejudging someone based on external factors that can -- but do not necessarily include -- race.

Supporting the abolition of affirmative action -- i.e., hiring, promoting or admitting into school, etc., on the basis of racial quotas -- as Ron Paul does is also not racism. If anything, the entire concept of affirmative action could arguably be viewed as racism since there is some underlying notion that minorities would otherwise be unable to gain schooling or employment were it not for racial quotas. I think that underestimates the abilities of minorities to the extreme.

Mod parent up

[Harmonious Botch]

Someone has actually studied economics before he posts!

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

His making word nosies with his sound hole confirms it.

Re:Funding only mega-corporations can provide

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Not saying I endorse him or his policies, but Huckabee has raised only 2 million and is actually ahead in some poles. I don't know about you, but I want a president that can do the most with the least. If Huckabee could run the government with the same financial prudence he has shown in his campaign, that would be awesome. I expect with the rise in polls that will most likely change. He probably won't turn down the money from anyone. But, it sort of shows what could be done.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[log1385]

He can also create a much broader awareness of important issues that are normally overlooked. For example, the US has a very fragile economy because of national debt and a currency that is no longer backed by a gold standard. This often gets overlooked, but a guy like Ron Paul could make the nation aware of it.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[maop]

Racial quotas has already been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I don't know why are harping on that.

Save the GOP ... from itself? Screw that!

[SlappyBastard]

Why can't the Ron Paul supporters ... all 3,000 of them apparently ... just accept that the GOP isn't broken and doesn't need saving? The GOP is doing exactly what it was built to do.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

He is not advocating an immediate return to the gold standard, rather making gold and silver competing currencies to Federal Reserve notes.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[mojo-raisin]

Great. Another ignorant, fear-mongering post.

Ron Paul is Pro Liberty and Individual rights! How on earth can you get "against homosexual rights" from that?! He wants to get the federal government out of the marriage business entirely!

In regards to religion, please show me one article written by Dr. Paul http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm
where he puts religion above the law and the Constitution.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Shining Celebi]

I'm curious about what you mean by "principled" voting record. Is talking about leaving things up for the "states to decide" while trying to ban abortion on the federal level principled? Is talking about the need to remove power from corporations while at the same time sponsoring bills to repeal worker safety laws, the minimum wage, and federal antitrust law, plus dozens of other laws, even including child labor and overtime laws, principled? What about his earmarks for the local shrimp industry while decrying those evil politicians wasting out money? What about proclaiming himself as a purveyor of libertarianism while trying to outlaw flag-burning?

I'd be all for the kind of candidate people think Ron Paul is, but this guy ain't him. Aside from that, you also have to take into account his lunatic economic theories, his stance regarding the Internet, and complete withdrawal from all international organizations. I mean, Jesus. I see all these people talking about how great he is, and then very fre of them seem to actually be aware of, you know, his actual record.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[mojo-raisin]

Please back up this statement of "wacky."

I find him to be the only candidate who focuses on important issues for the prosperity of America.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[phantomfive]

The problem with Ron Paul is that sometimes his opinions are just off.

He wants to go back to the gold standard, and essentially dismantle the federal reserve. Wow. Way to ignore everything we've learned about economics in the last 100 years. A few reasons: the price of gold fluctuates. Mild inflation is healthy for an economy (encourages investment, and is manageable unless you keep your cash in a mattress). Consider how volatile the US economy was before the federal reserve compared to after.

He wants to leave the WTO and the UN, leaving trade to be free, not managed-trade. It's pretty clear that managed trade is better than free trade, that's why we have the SEC in the US to regulate the stock market. A truly free market is just too easy to abuse. On the other hand, it does tend to favor the biggest player, so it's easy to see why a person so obsessed with sovereignty would want to escape from agreements that make things more fair for the little guy.

He wants to eliminate federal involvement in healthcare. You have to take care of people who are sick. You could argue that the states should take care of it, but that will cause massive inequities between regions.

His answer to everything on foreign policy is 'leave us out of it.' Isolationism just isn't possible anymore in this shrinking world.

He wants to make social security an 'opt out' program. The problem here, is that some of us are going to run into some bad luck, end up old and poor, and someone is going to have to pay for them (we aren't going to let them die in the streets). The way it currently works, everyone pays in, and everyone gets back out. If we get rid of social security, we're going to pay for those old people with an increase in taxes. (And yeah, I'm pretty sure that I can get a better ROI for my money than social security, but it's nice having something to fall back on if I get unlucky in the next S&L debacle). And if you are planning on answering saying "Social security is going bankrupt" you better have a good argument to keep your comment from being directed to /dev/null.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Shining Celebi]

So as long as he didn't write any articles there on the subject, we can ignore all the pro-life, anti-homosexual bills he's sponsored? This year alone:

H.R.2597 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
H.R.1095 : To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.
H.R.1094 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
H.R.300 To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.
We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

He has a long history of sponsoring such bills -- and let's not even talk about what he's voted for -- as this, some much worse. Ron Paul is vehemently against homosexual rights, and he's especially eager to allow states to ban it and forbid the courts from judging that as discrimination. He has, however, supported laws to discriminate against homosexuality federally. Look it up. This is great resource.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[evanbd]

Surprisingly enough, good economies require good economic policy. Unfortunately, that's not as simple as a gold standard. Historically, inflation occurs regardless of whether there is a precious metal or other substance backing the currency. Incidentally, you are aware that there isn't enough gold for the government to buy enough for 100% backing of the currency, right? Also, if you set the exchange value for gold at higher than the current market price, all you've done is ignored the problem and made an empty promise until such time as inflation makes the price of gold rise past your set value -- at which point the problem isn't any easier.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[evanbd]

Really? Last I checked, plenty of economies have had trouble both with and without backed currencies. As far as I can tell, the recipe for a strong economy is sound political and economic policy. There is no magic, and no easy answers.

(I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but it's in spite of, not because of, his ridiculous gold standard ideas.)

Re:Funding only mega-corporations can provide

[ls -la]

Tens of millions is quite an exaggeration there. Check the math: 30,000 * 100 = 3,000,000, not 30,000,000.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Joe U]

He can bring the troops home.

Heck, Congress could theoretically do that in a week if they really REALLY wanted to. It would be like using a sledgehammer on the executive branch and military, but it could be done.

Just set the military budget to $0 and legislate no troops permitted in Iraq.

(I did say sledgehammer, the results wouldn't be pretty)

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[mojo-raisin]

"Ron Paul is vehemently against homosexual rights, and he's especially eager to allow states to ban it"

I've looked everywhere and can not find where your statement is correct.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[evanbd]

$9T, while not trivial, is still not actually all that bad. Compare it to the GDP -- $12T. Now compare that ratio to a typical family income and house mortgage. Also compare it to other countries, or just other Western democracies.

I wouldn't call our debt small, but I don't think it's an immediate problem. We should be worrying about it, and I'm firmly in favor of trying to reduce government spending and pay it down, but I certainly wouldn't call it a sky-is-falling level crisis. We should be worrying about our debt, but not panicing or fearing about the possibility of hyperinflation.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Braxton_the_Covenant]

Since when did Keynesianism stop being a collection of lunatic economic theories, and neoclassical economics start?

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[thrillseeker]

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the eventual deciding vote, saying that affirmative action is still needed in America -- but hoped that its days are numbered. "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

So, if a racial preference is called "affirmative action", then it's ok - but if it's called a "quota", it's not ... glad that's been cleared up.

Evidence

[norova]

I am a World of Warcraft subscriber, and saw this junk spam posted on our forums today. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=3270769489&sid=1

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Anonymous Coward]

History has already show that idea to be retarded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetallism

Unless he's proposing that the backing quantities for fiat, gold, and silver dollars be on floating rather than fixed ratios, but that would effectively make all of them fiat dollars.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Braxton_the_Covenant]

It would be a difficult transition, but if correctly handled (which I have no confidence it would be, by interests vested in seeing it fail), it would be well worth it. Fiat money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency is a completely nuts system.

see: "What Has Government Done to Our Money?" http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=92

disappointing

[xubu_caapn]

you know, i cringed when i read "ron paul" in the subject title, because i knew people would start giving their very exaggerated, very uninformed, superficial analysis of his beliefs. i don't see why it should matter to anyone that he doesn't have as many supporters as other candidates. that's a mob mentality, and seeing that, especially from slashdotters, is pretty disheartening. it should also be irrelevant who his supporters are, or how annoying you personally find them. what about his policies??? it's very easy to say things like "markets need regulation" or to call him whacky, unrealistic, or that he won't implement be able to get things passed. can anyone provide a more in-depth analysis of his beliefs? if you don't agree with him, i don't give a shit, but at least provide some reasons for it. right now the level of discourse is about as high as what i would get on the o'reilly factor.

Re:disappointing

[Fantastic Lad]

I couldn't agree more.

While I don't like the conservative approach, I do like the way Paul appears to be his own man with his own opinions. --Which, incidentally, is why I doubt he has any real chances in the American stage drama of politics. He seems like an idealist who doesn't play well with others. The military industrial complex doesn't want guys like that calling the shots. -Calling the army home from Iraq? No, that's not going to go over well with the Powers That Be, (and I'm not talking about the current administration). Unless the whole system is pulled apart and all the many, many criminals put away, people who work within a belief system which doesn't recognize that the whole game is a sham which lives and breathes on the vapors of corruption are not going to make much head-way. It's a shame. Ron Paul for all the points I don't agree with, looks for all intents and purposes like what a real politician should be. We don't see too many guys like that. --And when we do see them begin to make real progress, they seem to die in small airplane crashes. I wonder if he realizes this.

-FL

Re:disappointing

[Guppy06]

"i knew people would start giving their very exaggerated, very uninformed, superficial analysis of his beliefs."

As opposed to his supporters very exaggerated, very uninformed, superficial analysis of reality?

"i don't see why it should matter to anyone that he doesn't have as many supporters as other candidates."

They don't call it an election for nothing.

"can anyone provide a more in-depth analysis of his beliefs?"

Take Article I, rip out the General Welfare Clause, and pretend that Section 10 applies to the federal government as well as (if not "instead of") the states.

Remove Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

That's really about it.

Re:disappointing

[Manchot]

First and foremost, Ron Paul has stated that he is against the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts. There's no way that he'd be able to repeal them as President, but he could certainly direct the Justice Department to not enforce them (a la Bush).

In the more general sense, his pseudo-libertarian policies essentially neglect the fact that a corporation is a legal entity and not really a person. People have begun to forget the fact that the original idea behind a corporation was to be a mutually beneficial contract between government (i.e., the people) and individuals. In exchange for exemption from liability and other protections, you have to pay additional taxes and abide by certain rules. Ron Paul would abolish many of these rules are minimize the taxes, so what benefit is society left with? None!

Let me restate this: despite what Paul (and many others) tell you, you do not have the right to the legal benefits of a corporation. You certainly should have the right to spend money in a way that you see fit, and you have the right to assemble with whomever you wish, but you do not have the right to be granted limited liability for your actions. If you are going to remove the rules and taxes associated with corporations, you must also remove the legal benefits. A true libertarian would recognize this.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Shining Celebi]

Well, here's a fine column on that website you linked that should give you a hint. He also voted to ban adoptions by gay couples, and more. Look harder. Look closer at the laws he's sponsored in that post as well.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[myth_of_sisyphus]

Ironically, a Continental dollar is now worth $24,000 US.

Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur

[Braxton_the_Covenant]

McCain is a lamer. Sure, I appreciate and sympathize with his being a POW and being tortured, but that doesn't make his welfare/warfare state views correct. Thankfully his campaign has faltered and he has no chance. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/duffy-p3.html

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[mojo-raisin]

First of all, the marriage issue is not about individual rights. Ron Paul in no way supports discrimination against gay individuals.

Secondly, this is definitely a difficult issue. I personally don't care if gay people get married. It's none of my business. I personally don't see why we have *any* laws recognizing or prohibiting marriage.

We are a republic, and I'm not sure if it's right to force some state (say Utah) to recognize a gay marriage performed in California or Massachusetts.

I'll leave the adoption issue for others to deal with. I've not read much about it.

My support for Ron Paul stems mostly from his views on international relations, taxation, limiting federal government and supporting individual rights.

As anyone who knows QM can tell you...

[Xenographic]

> Anti-women supporters? What are you talking about?

They're supporters that look exactly like normal women, but explode in a burst of gamma radiation when they come into contact with a woman. Probably a lot like your typical Digg user :]

Re:As anyone who knows QM can tell you...

[xtracto]

, but explode in a burst of gamma radiation when they come into contact with a woman. Probably a lot like your typical Digg user :]

Says the guy posting in a "news for nerds stuff that matters" site, within a "reactor botnet" story...

Oh... woops

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[jcr]

Have you ever heard of the Great Depression?

Do your homework: find out when the Federal Reserve was created. The Great Depression was the first of its many failures.

I'd rather have controlled inflation than another recession like that.

So, you're all for a problem that pretends to be its own solution, eh?

took a US History class in school.

If all you know of history is what you learn in a government school, then your ignorance is no surprise.

-jcr

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Pode]

IANRP ( I Am Not Ron Paul), but I'm going to put words in his mouth based on my understanding of his positions.

2597 and 1094: It's what the man believes, and it's consistent with basic biology (A fetus is alive, and it is unarguably human. You can legitimately argue whether or not it should have full legal protections identical to an adult, and that's a discussion we should have, but creating a mythical transformation point from non human to human somewhere between conception and birth is a laughable failure to grasp high school biology). He could argue the Constitutionality based on the Congressional power to conduct the census (The power to count a thing by necessity includes the power to determine what does and doesn't count as that thing). Regardless of your beliefs on the issue, a straight up or down vote on a bill like this in Congress (or my preference, state legislatures) is almost infinitely preferable to the current situation where 9 old lawyers answerable to no one decide whatever the hell they feel like and impose it on all the rest of us. Paul's bill, crackpot as it seems, would force a settlement of the issue so we could get on with other things in this country instead of this same tired fight coming up every election and dividing us yet again.

1095: Put an end to a blatant violation of the 10th amendment. Government should follow the law. Christ, you'd think the last 7 years would have made that PAINFULLY obvious to everyone.

300: See above, just change Article 3 for Amendment 10. State courts were supposed to be primary (read the Federalist papers and see for yourselves, even the big government Federalists promised that order of court supremacy in order to get the Constitution ratified)

We the People Act: See Amendments 1 and 10, especially 10. Not a power given to the federal government, courts or no courts. IIRC, 3 of the ratifying states had established state religions when the Bill of Rights was adopted, so it clearly was not intended to prevent states from making up their own minds on the subject. I'm not saying this is the way things should be, but unless there is an amendment to fix it, it's the law of the land and government should obey it.

"Against homosexual rights" and "supported laws to discriminate against homosexuality federally": More like against allowing the Federal government to have any say on or knowledge of the matter of who people sleep with one way or the other. Although I admit I haven't dug as deeply into this aspect of his record, so if you can contradict me on that interpretation I'd be interested to see your evidence.

Paul is a long way from perfect, but even the positions I violently disagree with him on are rationally argued and internally consistent with respect to his understanding of the Constitution, which overrides all other considerations for him. After 8 years of the Constitution being "just a goddammned piece of paper", I think restoring that principle to government is the absolute priority. We can sort out differences in opinion later, once our freedom to have differences in opinions is safe again. (Military Commissions Act, Homegrown Violent Radicalization act etc.)

SpamAssistant

[VeteranNoob]

The front-end also plays a part in the efficiency, by allowing the spammer to check the message's SpamAssassin score before hitting send, simplifying the process of filter evasion and ensuring maximum delivery for the message.

It's kind of sad, really. How can we win?

Re:SpamAssistant

[3vi1]

Whitelists.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[jcr]

Didn't know a Continental would fetch that much, but a Confederate dollar is worth up to a couple hundred, depending on its condition. That's numismatic value for you.

-jcr

Re:Save the GOP ... from itself? Screw that!

[mattwarden]

just accept that the GOP isn't broken and doesn't need saving? The GOP is doing exactly what it was built to do.

If that's true, then I will need to change my party affiliation. The only thing keeping an R next to my name is my assumption that recent (as in, since 2001) GOP wandering is a temporary, rather than permanent, bout of lunacy.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[OECD]

I did. It was obviously the editor of his newsletter at the time (when he was out of politics.) Heck, even the paper that broke that story didn't think it was his position. Look at his actual record before you start parroting someone else's talking points. And I say this as someone who started out being seriously annoyed by the "paultards." (Still am, half the time.) Just do some critical thinking.

Re:Denied connections

[mattwarden]

Are you kidding me? Tell me, really, what is the difference between voting Republican and voting Democrat. Spoiler alert: there is none, except for some very vague notion of which set of nearly identical, corporate influenced planks in the platform seem to align with the individual's personal beliefs.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[fimbulvetr]

FYI: http://www.mises.org/story/2781

Bush hijacked the 2000 platform

[michaelmalak]

In response to an editorial Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous that created a lot of controversy on the Ron Paul fora, I had a lengthy e-mail exchange with the author (once I figured out that I had to obfuscate the phrase "Ron Paul" to get past his Comcast spam filter). A "small" portion of that e-mail exchange was about what you alluded to -- what people think in response to the brand name "Republican". The brand name "Republican" is supposed to have something substantial behind it, namely the party platform. Indeed, we find that Bush is not only opposed to traditional Republicanism -- his operatives rewrote the platform behind closed doors (without input from the delegates) at the 2000 RNC!

The e-mail excerpts are below:

Ron Paul isn't hijacking the party because he is closer to the 1996 Republican Party platform (and previous years) than any other Republican candidate. It was Bush and friends who hijacked the Republican Party in 2000. Here are some excerpts from the 1996 platform that are either missing in the 2000 platform, watered down, contradicted by other portions of the platform, or just ignored by Bush and ultimately removed in the 2004 platform:

We are the party of small, responsible and efficient government, joining our neighbors in cities and counties, rather than distant bureaucrats, to build a just society and caring communities. We therefore assert the power of the American people over government, rather than the other way around. Our agenda for change, profound and permanent change in the way government behaves, is based on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[...]

As a first step in reforming government, we support elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Energy, and the elimination, defunding or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus. Examples of agencies we seek to defund or to privatize are the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation.

In addition, we support Republican-sponsored legislation that would require the original sponsor of proposed federal legislation to cite specific constitutional authority for the measure.

[...]

The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.

This is the Republican Party that I grew up with and knew and loved. I stopped calling myself a Republican in 1999 because, among other reasons, Bush refused to commit to a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees.

Ron Paul worked to nominate Reagan over Ford in 1976. Ron Paul is the torchbearer of what Reagan stood for (although Reagan did not live up to his words).

After the Democratic Party became the Communist Party at the turn of the century and went on to dominate the first half of the century, the Republican Party responded by becoming the anti-Federalist Party after WWII. Ron Paul is trying to steer the Republican Party back toward those days of 1952-1996. That's getting back on track, not hijacking.

The main difference between Ron Paul and Reagan is foreign policy -- the Reagan Administration, in its fight against communism, armed the most radical elements of Afghanistan and created the Taliban, which of course ended up harboring Osama bin Laden. Ron Paul wishes for the U.S. to not repeat that mistake.

Ron Paul is the

Re:Bush hijacked the 2000 platform

[h4rm0ny]

I really know very little about the current candidates, but it seems to me that there is presently a feeling of resentment and betrayal as regards the current Republican administration whilst at the same time many supporters see their party affiliation as an important part of themselves. Left unchecked, these combine to spell one thing - reduced voter turnout for the Republican party.

It seems to me that if I were behind the Republican party, my optimum strategy would be to set up a candidate who was both distanced from the current administration and yet staunchly Republican. A message of returning to the original values of Republicanism would provide this extremely well - both cancelling out the ill-feeling of the disillusioned and motivating the party faithful.

"Anything you didn't like wasn't real Republicanism. Anything you did like was real Republicanism and it's coming back!"

I can't at present think of any better electoral strategy for a party, or factions behind and within that party, to put forth. Renewal and Golden Days in one convenient package. Don't you think?

Re:Bush hijacked the 2000 platform

[Culture20]

I had a lengthy e-mail exchange with the author (once I figured out that I had to obfuscate the phrase "Ron Paul" to get past his Comcast spam filter).
This point intrigued me. I wonder if the point of Ron Paul spam is to force spam filters to put "Ron Paul" in the same category as "Nigerian Prince" and "Increase your member". That could go a long way to stifling the communications of Ron Paul devotees via email (since many people don't or can't check their Spam-traps).

Re:Bush hijacked the 2000 platform

[michaelmalak]

If you follow what I wrote and the whole thread carefully, you'll see that I was in favor of what Reagan said and not what he did. Because Ron Paul supported what Reagan was saying before Reagan was elected, it's incongruent to be supportive of Ron Paul without being supportive of what Reagan said. If you don't like Ron Paul, then, yes, perhaps it is a waste of time to read what I write.

Labeling the Democrats "Communists" is of course hyperbole, but not by too much. Consider:

• Woodrow Wilson (Democrat, 1913-1921)
  • Instituted the IRS
  • Instituted the Federal Reserve
  • Lead the U.S. into an unnecessary war (WWI), arbitrarily choosing the once-enemy British side over the German side
  • Jailed the producer of the movie "Spirit of 1776" because it portrayed the British as the enemy.
  • Created the League of Nations
• FDR (Democrat, 1933-1945)
  • Used Wilson's IRS to fund the New Deal
  • Considered Stalin a close ally during the war, and tried to hide the closeness from the U.S. public
  • At the end of the war, Roosevelt gave away half of Europe to Stalin.

And then of course LBJ's Great Society and the Clintons' trading military secrets for Chinese campaign donations.

This is in stark contrast to the Party of Jefferson before 1900. Grover Cleveland was the last president from the Party of Jefferson. Whatever the Democratic Party became after 1900, it wasn't the libertarian Party of Jefferson. While an objective present-day international observer would not call it communist, a U.S. libertarian would know what is meant by the term.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[mac666er]

Also, this is completely unsourced but there are rumors around that the Bretton Woods Accord (pegging the dollar to gold standard) was terminated also for strategic reasons, as the largest supplier of gold (largest gold mines) after South Africa is... Russia.

Russia was the world's largest gold producer in 1850's:

http://www.goldminershq.com/VLAD.HTM

Just imagine during the cold war looking at this graph...

http://www.goldsheetlinks.com/production.htm

Had you been in the oval office with everybody in the white house and the kremlin as tense as they were, stayed with the gold standard?

mac

Can't recognize the FUD

[jihadist]

Microsoft says FireFox has security holes: "OMG It's FUD!!!1!"

Someone fakes a Ron Paul spam: "It must be for real."

This must be how they get away with paying geeks less.

MBA: "So... your salary will be half what you expected. But you can use Linux!"

Geek: "I'll sign!!!1!"

Re:Can't recognize the FUD

[BlueParrot]

Right, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but if you modify that a little bit:

"Your salary will be 10% lower than what our main competitor offer, but we let you use whatever operating system you please, you don't have to sign any NDAs or non-competes, you get to keep copyright and other IP rights for things you create in your spare time, and you will never ever have to touch exchange, office or Internet explorer to do your job."

I dunno about you, but compared to the bullshit some people have to deal with, such a contract would be rather appealing actually.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[evanbd]

There is, shall we say, a gap in your reasoning. There is no reason that fiat currencies can't continue to be valuable for the same reason they are valuable now -- ie, that the other guy will continue to believe that his dollars can be exchanged for your stuff. I'd much rather have a fiat currency with sound political and economic policies behind it than a gold-backed currency without.

Re:Denied connections

[bigpat]

Tell me, really, what is the difference between voting Republican and voting Democrat. I believe South Park had it about right, the difference usually comes down to the choice between a "giant douche" or a "turd sandwich."

Any candidate that doesn't fit into the mold of Rich person's shill candidate is going to be labeled a nut job and a "fringe" candidate. Even if they happen to have been elected to Federal Office.

That is exactly why I like Ron Paul, because he votes against the party he happens to be affiliated with. And he learned the hard way that third parties and independents are excluded from the election system by design.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[jcr]

Gold and Silver coinage are mandated by the constitution. If circumstances make coinage impossible, then there's a way to amend the constitution to deal with those new conditions. Merely ignoring parts of the constitution because some people find them inconvenient leads to many problems. (Like undeclared wars and uncontrollable inflation, to name two.)

-jcr

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Archeopteryx]

Gold based currencies can inflate and have throughout history.

You want to tie the dollar to something real? Then tie a dollar to five minutes of labor.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[nschubach]

He could have been pointing out the flaw in said opinion polls as well, but I guess that's the way I read it as opposed to it being a racist comment.

adding a citation

[sethawoolley]

Wow, that's totally false. Their decisions are final. The buck stops there. It isn't JUST a precedent. They overturn laws with the stroke of a pen. They don't have to wait for the law to change. The law is overturned immediately. Just replying to myself.

I'm going to add a citation here for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Re:Unfortunately...your wrong

[raceface]

...on the other hand, who governs Canada simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside Canada. If you think this is true, you should consider where a significant amount of your country's fresh water comes from, and who controls said land upstream. The economic and environmental decisions made in this country can affect your water supply.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[iminplaya]

What exactly is the intrinsic value of gold? If nobody wants to buy it, how much do you think it will be worth?

Paul's own words

[opencity]

Or the words of his campaign staff ...

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action"

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

"Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society."

"The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards."

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion."

When asked about presenting 'alternatives to evolution' in the classroom, Paul responded 'yes'.

To sum it up: Racist, anti-choice, Christian right, pro intelligent design in schools, against environmental regulation (at a federal level, granted)
Sounds like a good Republican to me.

Re:Paul's own words

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

So do you believe that the FBI is racist too? Their own published statistics indicate that blacks are 7 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes. Its racist to point this out?

Re:Paul's own words

[cdrguru]

Obviously. It is racist because the first assumption is that the statistic is made up by racists. Any connection to reality is quickly wiped away because if the system wasn't racist then fewer black males would be in prison.

The mere suggestion that the idea of a separate "black culture" that has values 180 degrees out of phase with "white culture" is a bad thing earns you the label of racist. And of course anything that does not reinforce this idea of a separate black culture is therefore racial genocide.

Sorry, but there is only one solution to the "race problem" and it can take 1,000 years or 10 years. It is the elimination of the idea that there is a "black culture" that is somehow separate, distinct and valuable. There are either people or there are races. If we want there to be people, the idea of a black culture, black identity or black anything has to be wiped out. Along with white culture, white identity and white anything else as well.

You want to save, preserve and continue black culture? Fine. Then where this culture conflicts with someone elses culture there is going to be trouble and the minority is going to end up on the short end of the stick. Including going to prison when that culture values criminal acts against other members of the black community and white community.

Re:Paul's own words

[Manchot]

No, it's not racist to simply point it out. It is, however, racist to suggest the following:

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

In other words, he's suggesting that we should punish 13-year-old black males more severely than white males of the same age. Now, you may argue that he was really suggesting that people who have been raised on the streets should be more culpable than those who haven't, but if that were really the case, why use the phrase "black males" at all? And, moreover, why exactly is someone raised on the streets more culpable than someone raised in the suburbs? I would argue that the opposite is true: someone raised in the suburbs has far more opportunities than someone raised on the streets.

Re:Paul's own words

[hitchhacker]

"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal" You left out the beginning of that quote "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,'"

He was clearly labeling the D.C. criminal justice system as being racist.

-metric

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[vsync64]

The US dollar used to be good. Have you checked out what happened to international exchange rates lately? Our currency is a laughingstock, as our empire is fast becoming. Time to cut our losses, pull our troops back, and get ourselves into shape domestically. Ron Paul sees that it's better to get some humility, back down, and regain some respect, than to overshoot and fail completely, to be ignored and kicked around by the rest of the world forever after.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[vonsneerderhooten]

Allow me to reinforce parent's point...

Quoth Benjamin Franklin

"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

What exactly does it matter that people who are pro-White support Ron Paul? Where is your outrage against racist blacks supporting any of the major Democrat candidates?

White people wanting political and ethnic autonomy are somehow evil.

Re:Save the GOP ... from itself? Screw that!

[SlappyBastard]

Dude, seriously, haven't you ever considered why any group of sane, intelligent people would do the things the GOP has done lately?

Look at Hurricane Katrina. Only a batshit crazy zealot would cripple FEMA with small government ideology. Yet, that's what the Bushies did.

Look at the current mortgage crisis, which requires something along the lines of a broad buy-out of loans by the government, accompanied with relentless and thorough prosecutions of the people who defrauded investors by repackaging all this bad debt as investment-grade vehicles.

And keep in mind all of this was made many times worse when the Fed finally gave in to the big babies on Wall Street and cut interest rates. That sent the dollar into a nose dive, and will make life a lot harder for all of us (consider than gas would be $1.20 a gallon cheaper if the dollar were as strong as it was under Clinton).

The Republican Party is systematically gutting the usefulness of the government.

The only useful reason for the GOP to even keep the government alive is giving military cover to corporate actions in foreign countries. It's a joke.

Have some dignity and at least register independent.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

1) Ron Paul believes those issues should be left to the states, not the federal government. Why turn it into a national issue?

2) Ron Paul is religious but I do not see how you get that he is more religious than the other candidates! He most certainly is not.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[scbysnx]

haha well it has more intrinsic value then green cotton paper

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[phantomfive]

If you think it's ok to let people die because they don't have enough money, then you are a rather selfish chap and not the kind of person I would want representing me in the government.

As for your confused idea of the purpose of government, I refer you to the constitution, specifically the preamble where it's stated that one of its purposes is to "promote the general welfare."

Something needs to be done about health care. The current system of poor people going to the emergency room, being treated for free, and then hospitals receiving subsidies from the government is clearly not the way things should be done.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[scbysnx]

yep but when you've got a metal backed standard you have actual levels that you have to watch and compare to how much money your printing, in this country we print money like its the cool thing to do

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

He wants to leave the WTO and the UN, leaving trade to be free, not managed-trade.

Boo hoo. International bodies do not need to be regulating our trade. We can form agreements with our trading partners instead of leaving it up to these silly bodies.

A truly free market is just too easy to abuse

What is it about the lack of WTO and UN membership that automatically turn this into a "free market"?

On the other hand, it does tend to favor the biggest player, so it's easy to see why a person so obsessed with sovereignty would want to escape from agreements that make things more fair for the little guy

What does not wanting other nations having power over your nation's affairs have to do with fairness in how you treat others?

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Nullav]

That would only be a valid argument if gold were only used for jewelry. Gold is reasonably rare and quite useful; it's a good conductor and corrosion resistant. It's also used (with declining frequency) in dentistry, due to its malleability and corrosion resistance. On the other hand, I can't see any real uses for strips of paper that have been plastered with green ink.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[mrscorpio]

He wants to go back to the gold standard, and essentially dismantle the federal reserve. Wow. Way to ignore everything we've learned about economics in the last 100 years. A few reasons: the price of gold fluctuates. Mild inflation is healthy for an economy (encourages investment, and is manageable unless you keep your cash in a mattress). Consider how volatile the US economy was before the federal reserve compared to after.

Pray tell, what have we "learned" about economics over the last 100 years that invalidates the gold standard? I would argue, and I think Ron Paul would too, that it doesn't even have to be gold but currency has to be tied to SOMETHING tangible. The stock market crash of '29 and great depression happened with the gold standard, the crash in '87 and the recession in the late 70's happened without it. Today the dollar is at record lows against other currencies. Ron Paul's argument for tying the dollar to the gold standard is that the federal reserve can (and has) effectively printed more money to fund our foreign entanglements, something they could not do if the valuation of the dollar was not under their control. With the current situation in Iraq and the potential of Iran, can you say he's wrong to be concerned about that?

He wants to leave the WTO and the UN, leaving trade to be free, not managed-trade. It's pretty clear that managed trade is better than free trade, that's why we have the SEC in the US to regulate the stock market. A truly free market is just too easy to abuse. On the other hand, it does tend to favor the biggest player, so it's easy to see why a person so obsessed with sovereignty would want to escape from agreements that make things more fair for the little guy.

You're comparing apples to oranges. First off, no it's NOT clear that managed trade is better than free trade, but the SEC has nothing to do with the UN or WTO. The SEC regulates the purchase of American stock, the other organizations you mention involved non-securitized trade between nations. The UN and WTO have not been shown to benefit the world, so why be members is the end result is less freedom, sunk costs, and no benefits?

His answer to everything on foreign policy is 'leave us out of it.' Isolationism just isn't possible anymore in this shrinking world.

That's too simplistic, because he was for attacking Afghanistan post-9/11. No, Ron Paul is simply for only using the military when there is a real danger to America. Iraq was not a danger to America. Iran still isn't. If you want to help topple a foreign regime or help the oppressed, do us all a favor and go over there yourself and leave the rest of us out of it.

He wants to make social security an 'opt out' program. The problem here, is that some of us are going to run into some bad luck, end up old and poor, and someone is going to have to pay for them (we aren't going to let them die in the streets). The way it currently works, everyone pays in, and everyone gets back out. If we get rid of social security, we're going to pay for those old people with an increase in taxes. (And yeah, I'm pretty sure that I can get a better ROI for my money than social security, but it's nice having something to fall back on if I get unlucky in the next S&L debacle). And if you are planning on answering saying "Social security is going bankrupt" you better have a good argument to keep your comment from being directed to /dev/null.

If you don't want them to die in the streets, support them out of your own pocket, don't do it by making illegal for me not to do it. That's the problem with socialism...the intent is always altruistic, but the answer is always "use government coercion to take money to that guy and give it to that other guy". Socialism is the economic version of GWB's foreign policy. That's some good company there, let me tell you.

Social Security IS going bankrupt and is a flawed s

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[MobyDisk]

Your post is completely misinformed. You have painted Ron Paul to be exactly the opposite of the positions he took on each of those issues.

What about proclaiming himself as a purveyor of libertarianism while trying to outlaw flag-burning? Ron Pal did not try to outlaw flag burning. He spoke out against a flag burning amendment and then voted against it. He actually proposed the amendment then voted against it to force the issue onto the floor. That's courageous and principled.

Is talking about the need to remove power from corporations while at the same time sponsoring bills to repeal worker safety laws, the minimum wage, and federal antitrust law, plus dozens of other laws, even including child labor and overtime laws, principled? Each of those items is completely consistent with libertarian viewpoints. The Libertarian viewpoint is that those types of laws weaken the ability for the economy to find the appropriate market value of labor, and that they work against the workers in the long-haul. I'm not sure I agree with that entirely, but it is consistent with what he claims to believe.

It is obvious you disagree with the libertarian viewpoint, and that is fine. But don't paint him to be a liar when it is the completely consistent.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[iminplaya]

Why? The value is purely speculative. It is faith based on both counts.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[iminplaya]

Ok it has value for specific human purposes. Gold for those things you mention, and paper for its convenience as a common medium of exchange for goods and services. In both cases the value is decided by people. Nature does not care about conductivity or corrosion resistance. It simply exists. So gold has no value in and of itself any more than paper.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[evanbd]

That is true, but if not for its use in jewelry and as a store of value, what would gold be worth? Half its current price? A tenth? Is it meaningfully different to back your currency with something whose inherent value is less than half the value of the currency than to simply not back it?

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[QuietObserver]

I'd like to say I completely agree with you; the constitution gives the federal government no power to regulate marriage, adoption, or even discrimination. The ninth and tenth amendments explicitly restrict the federal government from making laws that "deny or disparage the rights of the people" (ninth) and from using or regulating "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" (tenth); read the actual amendments to see what I mean. Certain clauses in the constitution have been taken so far out of the context that the founding fathers envisioned (for example, 'promote the general Welfare' has been construed to mean providing social services to the public, but was seen as the founding fathers as providing for the needs of the country as a whole) that many of todays laws are strictly unconstitutional by any merit, yet are considered by many to be core principles upon which our nation was founded. Your statements here are strictly in keeping with what the Constitution says and means, and that is why I, myself, feel that Ron Paul is the best of the current breed of candidates.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[evanbd]

This is going to sound weird, but... Are you sure that's entirely a bad thing? Clearly, you can print too much money. But it also seems that our current economic troubles are more closely related to recent bad policies than to either the creation of money or the fact that we use a fiat currency. So, just as it is unclear to me that low levels of inflation are inherently bad, it is similarly unclear to me that printing modest amounts of money is a bad thing.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[phantomfive]

Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read.
From the article:

Congressman Paul attributed both the NASDAQ bubble and the more recent housing bubble to interest rate manipulation. Here is an example of what I mean, that he completely misunderstand the issues. The housing bubble was due to greed and bad loans, not interest rate manipulation. This has been documented all over the place: basically real estate agents (being pushed by builders and their supervisors) were convincing people to buy houses that were beyond their ability to pay. The people buying the houses sometimes didn't know what was going on, or sometimes they did, but were swept away in their greed to catch the rising house prices. A lot of people bought houses expecting to sell them later at a higher price: in some places 30% of the house sales were investment houses. When the prices stopped rising, they weren't able to keep up with the payments. That's the short story, look to google for deeper knowledge.

As for the Nasdq bubble, it's pretty clear that there was bad investing all over the place. I don't know if you remember, but basically anything with a .com in it's name got funding. Any company that had an IPO shot up like a rocket. Companies were failing all over the place, but investors were desperate looking for the big one that would take them to the top. Greed again.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[bigpat]

Erm, not at $1 and ounce, no. But at some multiple. If it has to be $2,800 per ounce then people will not both exchanging dollars for gold with the government, because they can get gold cheaper elsewhere. But the effect of tying the dollar to *something* will be just as strong. At least if we stick with it, it won't be $3,100 next year and $3,300 the year after that. Just because a return to the gold standard can't undo the last 90+ years of inflation is no reason not to do it. I am a Ron Paul supporter because he has held the line on balancing the budget, personal liberties and promotes a responsible foreign policy. But I dislike the emphasis on the "Gold" standard. Seems to me that people can exchange their cash for something else at whatever it is valued that day and therefore "lock in" the value against Gold, Silver or some other commodity, stock or any material good of their own choosing. So, just knowing that the dollar is not an appropriate store of long term value means that it can safely be used for short term transactions and that people can make informed decisions about what is an appropriate way to save and invest.

For example, I wouldn't sign a contract to sell you my house for its current dollar value in 50 years, but Inflation will probably mean that its dollar worth in 50 years will be several times its current worth all else being equal. But there is so much variability over that length of time that I probably wouldn't sign any contract at all because of excessive risk. Of course if a currency can't hold its value in the short term, then that means short term contracts can't be made with any certainty either and that can cause real economic problems.

But even the problem with long term contracts can be addressed with "either or" types of contracts which can specify the exchange of something other than dollars. There was a real world example of this type of thing in the news some number of years ago. I do not remember the specifics, but a company made a very long term lease arrangement for a large office building (perhaps on the order of 80 to 90 years.) The terms of the lease called for a payment at the end of the lease, to be paid in either dollars or gold at the discretion of the landlord. It turned out that the gold was worth a lot more than the dollars were worth and it had to be settled in court.

And fixing the value of the dollar to an arbitrary amount of some precious metal, doesn't mean that the value measured against other things will always be fixed. In other words, a Gold Standard doesn't fix inflation altogether. Because gold itself has a value based upon its desirability or usefulness. Gold has specific uses in electronics and other applications which become more or less important to people as technology and tastes change.

Say for instance you fixed the dollar to a certain amount of aluminum instead of gold, then someone goes and creates a cheaper method for mining the metal and suddenly there is a glut of aluminum on the market. That would equally cause inflation to rise precipitously. Gold is actually much more scarce in nature than aluminum, but there would be a similar effect on the demand side if gold jewelry was no longer in fashion and something better started being used for electronics.

I agree that using a medium of value that has no intrinsic value itself does have a certain risk, but the financial system should be flexible enough to mitigate that risk without having to return to what is essentially a glorified form of barter exchange which causes central banks to horde a useful metal.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[NickNameCreateAccoun]

>Wow. Way to ignore everything we've learned about economics in the last 100 years.

I'm sure you know about the us economy is crashing right as we talk? Even without a gold standard i am not that sure federal reserve can handle it.

But i give you credit in this, with federal reserve we can all have that cosy socialist feeling when we help those poor bastards that screwed up. You know, the sub prime bailout. Personally i go for gold.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[TooMuchToDo]

You're absolutely correct. Interest rate manipulation is a red herring. What really caused both the stock and then the real estate melt down was the wholesale abandonment of regulations. Technically, they were still there, but most ignored them because the money was rolling in. 100% financed mortgages? Teaser rate mortgages? Interest only mortgages? Advanced financial instruments that less then 1% of the country should consider, but were advertised as the saving grace of the common man who normally couldn't afford a mortgage. Combined with lenders such as Countrywide and Citibank rushing to hand out money, you get the current collapse.

All I have to say

[xx01dk]

on the matter is this: While I may not agree with all of Dr. Paul's ideals, I sure as heck agree with a damn sight more of his than I do with anyone else's and that alone is worth my vote next November.

Am I being too cynical in the belief that possibly, maybe, this was a way to try to hijack or discredit his campaign? We all know how internet savvy the campaign has been so far. Is this an attempt to try to alienate Dr. Paul's core or those who don't know of him and maybe fear things like the internet? I hope that if that turns out to be the case then all of this investigating will have caused the attempt to backfire.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[TooMuchToDo]

Should we tie the dollar to something such as oil?

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Nullav]

You might as well say homes and clothing are worthless on the same grounds. After all, what does nature care about any of that?

They don't care anymore.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Just look at either of the Bush campaigns.

In particular, look at "independent" groups like Swiftboat Veterans Against Kerry.

I also think that it seems extremely unlikely that any Ron Paul supporter is stupid enough to do this. Therefore, I can only assume it was done to smear him, whether or not there was any real connection to another candidate.

You say that sarcastically, but...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Even if he hasn't got a chance, do you care enough about any of the other candidates to bother?

At least you can get behind Ron Paul. (I think. I still have to write all these candidates and ask them about things like Net Neutrality, DMCA, etc.)

Re:You say that sarcastically, but...

[rthille]

I used to think I could vote for Ron Paul, until I heard him call abortion murder.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[phantomfive]

I'm sure you know about the us economy is crashing right as we talk? Even without a gold standard i am not that sure federal reserve can handle it. Wow, you almost sound happy that the US economy is crashing. Good thing it's not. Have you personally felt the economic impact of the valuating Euro? Do you know anyone who has lost their job because of it? Look around, and ask yourself, is the US economy crashing? No, it is not. In fact it is expanding. And will continue to do so for quite some time, buoyed by the expansion of the global economy.

I have to agree with you on the sub-prime bailout, but the national debt is not an issue of the federal reserve. That is the department of the treasury.

And now for a meta-comment (meta-mods take note)

[sethawoolley]

I'd like for people to step back a little from this thread and look at the parent and the grandparent posts put together.

The parent has taken my post out of context, removed the support for my statement, accused me of being a liar, and then he gets moderated "informative". His "informative" part may be that he does admit that Ron Paul has flip-flopped on the death penalty, but it doesn't seem right that he gets moderated informative thrice, and by that time, my post didn't get moderated informative. I actually linked to and pointed out the characteristics of Ron Paul's actual voting record that didn't mesh with the /. hive-mind regarding Ron Paul.

If jcr had left my context in, you would note clearly that his post is unjustly maligning my comment. He calls me a liar and NEVER addressed the fact that I pointed out that Ron Paul had voted FOR federal intervention in abortion policy. That CANNOT be denied by any sane person. A ban IS intervention. That was my point that he called me a liar about. Paul SAYS he will leave it up to the states, but he VOTED to not leave it up to the states, repeatedly and in all instances on this particular issue. jcr's comment then is merely a baseless assertion, removed from the damning context, constructed to make it look like the parent post is merely a quick jab. On the contrary, it was a well-considered jab, not to jcr, but to Paul, and one that was backed up, though if you just read his post, you'd think he had a point against me.

I know it's a small portion of the moderators that quickly mod up without understanding context (heck, it was only three of them, though it may be more by now), but in this case, I think the metamoderators will have to take note and mark jcr's comment as clearly an overrated, dishonest attack on my honesty: hypocrisy at its finest.

jcr, next time you try an ad hominem remark, take a step back and consider how it looks. This one doesn't look well-placed. Instead it looks not just false, but reactionary.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[absoluteflatness]

We are a republic, and I'm not sure if it's right to force some state (say Utah) to recognize a gay marriage performed in California or Massachusetts. Unfortunately, the Constitution disagrees, at least on its face.

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

The application of this to same-sex marriage between states is pretty controversial at the moment.

Re:Unfortunately...your wrong

[m2943]

If you think this is true, you should consider where a significant amount of your country's fresh water comes from, and who controls said land upstream. The economic and environmental decisions made in this country can affect your water supply.

Meaning what? Canada is going to build a big dam along the border if Canadians don't get their way? That would not only be rather unwise, it would also be in violation of international law. Somehow, I don't see anybody in the US losing sleep over that.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[CRCulver]

Americans are increasingly stuck at home instead of being able to take their savings and travel aimlessly for years like young people in Europe. Who cares if the economy is getting better if you can't go anywhere?

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[feepness]

To a large extent, the US and Americans do, because to many countries, Dollars ARE de-facto gold. That works... until it is taken advantage of by the government. And it has been, and soon no longer will be the case.

Re:Funding only mega-corporations can provide

[bloodstar]

FWIW, Huckabee has a natural Evangelical audience that has been waiting for a candidate to get behind. couple that with having good oration skills and a good bit of charm, and Huckabee is getting literally millions of dollars in free exposure from the media about the new darling candidate. Bully for him, but once/if people manage to get past the charm, they'll notice some of the pretty significant skeletons in the closet.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[iminplaya]

Food and shelter did come mind. But even those only have value to certain species that need them to survive. So I do place higher value on those things than gold. A tree doesn't need shelter. And it only can grow where nutrients and and other conditions are right. But we're talking about a means of exchange. You have something that someone else wants and you make a mutually beneficial exchange. The value is decided by the parties involved. I have no gold, so to me it has no value. If I was a trader or speculator, the story would be different. But for now, it's neither convenient or necessary for my survival. It only becomes valuable if somebody wants to pay more than I did for it. That makes it a matter of speculation. I only care about how many kilos of tortillas or beans or avocados my paper can buy me. Unfortunately those things are decided by the commodity trading wolves on Wall Street and not the farmer that produces them. They are the ones who bring gold into the picture. If I have a ton of gold that I can't sell, then what good is it? I'll take the food.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[stuartkahler]

Paul and gay/black/jewish/other minorities:
My understanding is that Ron Paul is against ANY laws that divide people into certain sub-classes and then grant those specific groups additional rights based on their minority class. He believes that all people are individuals with equal rights and that there should be no laws that give extra protection or financial benefit to specific groups.

Think about the following hypothetical statements:
Crimes against white people by non-whites should be punished more severely in order to reduce crime against them.
White people should be given preference in hiring and admissions over other people of greater qualification in order to raise their socioeconomic status.
We should assist in the defense of and ally ourselves with white nations who are threatened by non-white nations.
White people should be allowed to form organizations that exclude non-white people from joining.
Tax dollars should be used to help fund organizations specific to white people.

Of course, to vote for the above ideals would be considered the height of racism in America. But if you change 'white' to some minority, you run the risk of being labelled as a racist for being against them.

There are a lot of well-intentioned laws passed every year that aim to prevent minority abuse. But in protecting one class of people at the expense of another, you just expand the problem. Ron Paul consistently votes against laws that grant additional rights to a particular class of people at the expense of the rights of the rest.

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - Justice Clarence Thomas

Re:And now for a meta-comment (meta-mods take note

[jcr]

his post is unjustly maligning my comment

I'm taking you to task for calling an honest man a liar. If you can't handle that, try to work it out in therapy.

next time you try an ad hominem remark, take a step back and consider how it looks.

that's advice that you would do well to follow.

-jcr

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[phantomfive]

Pray tell, what have we "learned" about economics over the last 100 years that invalidates the gold standard? Wikipedia has the answers. Basically the gold standard is a good idea if you are trying to prevent hyperinflation, but not for much else.

First off, no it's NOT clear that managed trade is better than free trade, Managed trade is better than free trade. We use it in the US for the stock market, for truth in advertising, for getting safe pasteurized milk, for used car dealers who won't rip you off too badly. Sure it's not perfect, but I'd rather not have to learn how to inspect a house to make sure it is stable before buying it. That's what we have building inspectors for.
It is understandable for the US to not want managed international trade, however, since we are the biggest, we are able to push our trading partners around to get deals we want. It's not a good precedent because we will not always be the biggest, and when we aren't the WTO will be nice to have.

If you don't want them to die in the streets, support them out of your own pocket, don't do it by making illegal for me not to do it. If you want people to die in the streets, then I want you committed. Part of the purpose of government is to 'promote the general welfare' according to the constitution. How can one follow the 'pursuit of happiness' when they are dying of a disease? If we can help them out, we should. The payback is that if you're ever in that situation, you'll get the same treatment.

Re:And now for a meta-comment (meta-mods take note

[sethawoolley]

I'm taking you to task for calling an honest man a liar. If you can't handle that, try to work it out in therapy. Hah, you're quite taking me to task, all right. I'll let you know when I see that happen. At that point, I'll consider my therapy options.

Try responding to the meat of my line of argument. I'll look forward to this "taking to task" you speak of.

Or perhaps the Paulian Mechanical Turks aren't quite programmed with a proper response to it yet and I've been played by an automaton. *shrug*

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[stuartkahler]

Your link goes to a bill that tries to clarify when a sperm and egg shall constitute a human being. At the moment, it's a zygote or a baby depending on the whim of the mother or prosecuting attorney. There's no consistency. It's NOT a ban on abortion, though it could lead to Roe v Wade being overturned, putting abortion law back to the way it was before then.

As a congressman, he often brings bills to the floor to force a vote and close a debate that is eating up time. Dr. No votes against many of his own bills.

As a congressman, part of his job is to secure money from the $27billion earmark fund for his own district. It's a dedicated part of the budget, every congressman is obligated to get their share. He still votes against the bills that contain the earmarks. He even voted against the bill that contained his own earmark for shrimp marketing.

Internet... He wants it untaxed and unregulated. What does a /. poster dislike about that?

Withdrawing from international organizations... We have many of our laws dictated to us by multinational organizations. It's an attack on our sovreignty. Ron Paul is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Economics... He got into politics because of his interest in economic theory. He's been on the House Banking Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, and the Committee on Financial Services. He delights in dragging the federal reserve chairman to the House to berate him for the secretive manipulation of the US$. And the Wall Street traders cheer him on.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[erroneus]

If an individual were able to take out trillions of dollars in loans and claim that's what he's worth and then hand that debt down to his children to pay, would you have much respect for that individual?

Every Federal Reserve Note is a Dollar that the US Government borrowed from the Federal Reserve Bank against your ability to pay taxes. Think of what it means for someone other than yourself to create debt that YOU have to pay? That makes you a slave in a way doesn't it? And that "deficit" thing? They talk about it all day long on the news... what does it mean exactly?

Ultimately what getting off the Gold Standard has done is replaced a check book with an unlimited credit card. We know what happens when individuals do it. Why would we expect less disasterous problems when a Government does it!? (Yes, it's possible to NOT go crazy into debt using credit cards... but they aren't doing it.)

The Federal Reserve Bank is *NOT* a branch of the U.S. Federal Government... they may OWN the U.S. Federal Government (and through that government, they own you) but they are NOT the U.S. Federal Government.

The Gold Standard is a checkbook. Being on the Federal Reserve is a credit card. Think about it.

Re:And now for a meta-comment (meta-mods take note

[jcr]

Paulian Mechanical Turks

Oh, that's so clever! They must be so proud of you at your junior pinko meetings.

You started this by telling a baldfaced lie, trying and failing to impugn Ron Paul's integrity. He is an honest man, and you are not. Sucks to be you, I'm sure.

-jcr

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[jcr]

Sucker.

People who believed that merely by going into debt, they could benefit from inflation, are now losing their homes in foreclosure. The beneficiaries of inflation are those who get to spend the newly-created money first. That's not you or me.

-jcr

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Builder]

How is affirmative action NOT racism? The whole idea is to give opportunities or funding only to people with specific colour skins.

No examination of background occurs... If they really wanted to 'help previously disadvantaged people' then a white kid with two generations of family who worked the mines should be _just_ as eligible as a black kid from the same background.

Again, affirmative action exists to benefit people of specif races only and explicitly excludes other equally disadvantaged people purely on the basis of their race. It's plain and simple racism, just with a fancier name.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[mmortal03]

There are other solutions to it besides gold and silver. Ron Paul has just said that he likes the ideas behind gold and silver, but I have read or watched him say that it doesn't have to be gold and/or silver.

Ron Paul and the content of speech.

[Harmonious Botch]

I'll believe you, without any trouble at all. As best I recall, he had problems with the particular choice of executive departments ( FTC vs FCC ). He didn't so much vote against a do-not-call list, as he voted against an FTC-operated do-not-call list. He would have voted for the list if it were run by the FCC.

The issue is that when run by the FTC, as the vote authorized, the government is judging speech by its content. The FTC - the Federal Trade Commission - would be judging whether or not the speech is commercial, ie: trade oriented. And judging speech by its content is a first amendment violation.

The FCC, by contrast, would only be judging what type of communication it is. The FCC has a long history of banning certain types of communication: broadcasting on certain frequencies, or using too much power, etc. These don't violate the first amendment.

A formal legal opinion was expressed by Judge Edward Nottingham ( after the vote ):

"There is no doubt that unwanted calls seeking charitable contributions are as invasive to the privacy of someone sitting down to dinner at home as unwanted calls from commercial telemarketers...The FTC has imposed a content-based limitation on what the consumer may ban from his home, thereby entangling the government in deciding what speech the consumer should hear." In summary, Ron Paul made his decision based on first amendment issues. It is not clear that the issues of privacy or property rights even made it onto his screen.

BTW, all of the above is from memory. I can't find anything on the net explaining why he voted against it.

PS: sorry about the 'crack' comment.

Re:Ron Paul and the content of speech.

[Harmonious Botch]

Addendum: one of the correlaries to the above comment is that Ron Paul would support a do-not-call list with no exceptions: no politicians, no polsters, no charities. These groups are exempt from the curremt law.

Re:Ron Paul and the content of speech.

[vux984]

He would have voted for the list if it were run by the FCC.

I'm skeptical of that. Paul isn't exactly in favor EITHER department from what I've read. And the only part of the FCC that he'd probably deem necessary is the part that regulates spectrum, because RF spectrum allocation and use is inherently an intersstate (even international) issue. (Which is why the FCC is in the ITU [international telecommunications union].)

But on the wired side, the FCC's role is probably obsolete. I can't think of anything they do in wired communications that is remotely necessary.

The FCC has a long history of banning certain types of communication: broadcasting on certain frequencies, or using too much power, etc. These don't violate the first amendment.

True. But those are a fundamentally different situation. RF bandwidth is an effectively scarce resource that doesn't respect any borders. Whoever builds the most, and most powerful transmitters wins. Neighboring states and countries would compete to drown eachother out. Emergency services would have to cope with high power transmitters blasting rock music into their bands etc. Clearly some sort of federal (and even international) oversight and cooperation is required.

email or phone calls simply do not have anything like these issues.

In summary, Ron Paul made his decision based on first amendment issues. It is not clear that the issues of privacy or property rights even made it onto his screen.

And from your own quote:

"The FTC has imposed a content-based limitation on what the consumer may ban from his home, thereby entangling the government in deciding what speech the consumer should hear."

I think he'd see the same sort of 'entanglement' in a bill that decided what email the consumer should receive. I think he'd vote against the federal government taking that sort of role, regardless of what department. While he may have specifically criticised the use of the FTC for the do-not-call-registry, I think that's simply because that's the department in question. I simply can't see him approving the FCC to entangle the government in what speech consumers hear either.

PS: sorry about the 'crack' comment.

Its slashdot. I expect it. An apology for it though is a welcome surprise. Thanks.

Meh.

[Almahtar]

The world of politics is full of foul play. Sometimes it's on the part of the obvious culprit, sometimes its framing. I don't care in this case.

When I looked up Ron Paul's actual stances and policies I thought, for the first time in a long time, "he actually wants to change something". Say what you will about whatever candidates, but Ron Paul seems to be the only fairly-popular candidate I know of that actually plans on making changes, and we need changes badly. Even bad changes at this point would be better than no change.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[stuartkahler]

Gold standard: US currency is now backed in NOTHING but the credit of the US government. Prior to 1913, the dollar was backed in gold and silver. Adjusted for inflation, the prices of gold and silver (and most other commodities) have hardly changed. Personally, I think that the dollar should be backed in gold, silver, steel, copper, oil, cotton and a bunch of other commodities. But the current system where the reserve prints up money out of thin air is ridiculous. Why? Because if the US government defaults on it's $9Trillion debt, then the $US will collapse completely.

SEC: The SEC is to prevent fraud. Without the SEC, employees would not be accountable to the investors who own their company.

WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA: Managed trade favors big companies who can work out the deals and regulations required. Small companies can't get through the beauracracy. It's full of corrupt beauracrats who have the power to decide if you get to sell internationally or not.

Healthcare: Medicare/aid has destroyed affordable healthcare. The government forces hospitals to accept state patients and then only pays them about 30% of the retail price. To compensate, the hospital has to raise the retail price by over 200%. If you're insured, your plan gets to pay a discounted rate. If you're paying cash, you get to pay 2x-3x what the hospital charges the other guy's insurance company. Thank the government.

Foreign Policy: He's not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist. North Korea is isolationism. Sweden is non-interventionism.

Social Security:
In the 1930s, Social Security was started solely to keep the unemployable elderly from ending up homeless and starving to death. The tax rate was 1%, and the retirement age was identical to the life expectancy of 65 years old. The program collected contributions for five years to build up a buffer before paying out a cent.
Now, SS is considered a retirement plan for the able-bodied. The tax rate is 13% (your employer matches the 6.5% FICA you see on your paycheck). The retiremend age is 67, or you can retire early at 62(!!!). The life expectancy is 78 (SEVENTY- EIGHT!!) years old. The program is projected to be bankrupt in 40 years, so if you're under 38 years old, it will run out before you die; if you're under 27, you'll never see a penny.
My belief is that for SS to survive, the tax needs to be cut back down to 1-3%, and the retirement age set to float at 2 years under the average life expectancy. Encourage people to save cash on their own if they really want to retire to Florida. Only children (and maybe the truly disabled) should be entitled to live off someone else's labor for 16 years (age 62-78).

habeas corpus

[wwmedia]

whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty? oh wait never mind

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[stuartkahler]

WRONG!
The fed artificially lowered interest rates by way too much. This allowed people to either drastically lower their monthly payments or be able to buy a much more expensive home for the same monthly payment. This became a national trend.

In areas with a limited housing supply, home prices rose drastically so that the higher price with the lower interest rate yielded the same monthly payment. Some people cashed out massive profits, but at the expense of the buyer who would see their home value plummet to it's previous value in five years.

In areas with plenty of builders and land to put homes on, people began building huge quantities of larger, more lavish homes. Individual home prices didn't go up, but median home prices did. Fueled by low monthly payments, people bought homes that they could never afford at the rates from just a few years earlier.

This, in turn, LED to the incredibly lax bank lending standards in some areas. Previously, banks required hefty down payments, good credit and proof of income to give a loan. But with homes appreciating at double digit rates (again, caused by artificially low interest rates), it looked like a sure thing that the outstanding loan would be under 80% in two years. Fifty year, interest only, reverse amortization, it didn't matter, the house would out-appreciate ANY loan.

Then the fed comes back in, raises the rates back up and BAM, people default like crazy because they can't refinance their ARMs at anything close to the old rate.

Yes, there was bad business practices and greed all around, but the root cause of the whole thing was bad interest rate manipulation by the federal reserve.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[NickNameCreateAccoun]

No i am not the least happy about the coming recession. And no i do not live in the eurozone.

The point of my argument is that even after 100 years of the new economic theory[1] the people in charge still manages to screw things up. Now you got a desperate federal reserve trying to evade the coming crisis. As we speak they are activle devaluing the dollar, or said in plain English, taking value from your wallet.

Now, suppose they only cold print a dollar note for every ounce of gold they have in the reserves? Do hold in mind that the looming sub prime crisis all is to blame upon the institution's said to protect your money. One of these institutions is federal reserve.

-But hey, housing can only go up! Perhaps there would not be a recession as you would argue...

[1]According to what economic school one might ponder?

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[bytesex]

Gold is currently at 800 dollars an ounce. That price comes from the amount of trouble it takes to find it. To support the gold standard, and incorporate all us dollars available into all gold available to the us, you'd probably have to multiply that number by, say, about a million. So 800,000,000 US dollars per ounce. Suddenly, secretly mining the stuff would become very attractive. Suddenly, your grandmother's necklace can buy you a whole village of your own ! Suddenly, all sorts of industries (jewelry, tech, dentistry) collapse because gold becomes unavailable to them at any reasonable price. Suddenly, gold smuggling into the us becomes a big, big problem (causing, o irony of ironies, big time inflation).

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Domstersch]

There is, shall we say, a gap in your reasoning. [...] I'd much rather have a fiat currency with sound political and economic policies behind it than a gold-backed currency without.

Speaking of deficient reasoning, I do believe that's a false dilemma. That is, you've given no reason we can't have both a gold-backed currency as well as sound political and economic decisions. You have to speak to the likelihood of one preventing the other before you can say you're giving a reason against the adoption of a gold-backed currency. Alternatively, if you want to claim that you didn't intend it as a dilemma - that you just wanted to say you'd prefer the one case over the other - then you're just engaging in empty rhetoric: why should we care what you prefer.

So, please, give us some facts about whether having a gold-back currency leads to bad political and economic decisions (I don't have any; not to say they don't exist - I'm just criticising your argument). Or, shut up.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[jcr]

Well, to be precise, the constitution authorizes the federal government to coin money, and prohibits it from issuing fiat currency. It places no restrictions on private coinage or bills of credit.

-jcr

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[mmortal03]

Hence the fiasco that was the raiding of the Liberty Dollar business. The Constitution also says that it must be gold and silver only, which obviously if Ron Paul wanted to go there or do something different would both need an amendment. That is what sucks about having to follow the rules when no one else does. Kind of why he is the underdog, because he actually plays it straight.

He would work to develop an interim solution based on the many proposed theories that are out there. He has talked about the needed transition period to move forward, and that is how he would deal with it. Most people against Ron Paul think he would somehow be able to come in and create sweeping changes. That couldn't happen and that isn't what Ron Paul supporters want, either. We want someone who isn't going to take us further in the wrong direction on either social or economic issues, which a neo-con Republican or a Democrat will. He would first determine the most objective way of moving forward, away from all this mess, and he has the methodical approach to do it right.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Magada]

As I understand it, gold based currencies can be devalued if the market supply of gold increases a lot (happened to the Roman empire, once). Otherwise, they are stuck in a deflation cycle which tends to make long-term loans very very expensive. As a state, to borrow against a nation's future earnings, you need an inflating currency and that's how fiat currencies came to be.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Attila Dimedici]

The Federal Reserve Bank is a Branch of the Federal Government. It was created by an act of Congress. Its rules are interpretations of laws passed by Congress. It is governed by a Board appointed by the President and Confirmed by the Senate. The Federal Reserve is no less a part of the Federal Government than the IRS. I read at least one of the websites that claims to lay out how the Federal Reserve is not part of the Government, it was no more credible than the people who claim that Income Tax is purely voluntary and you don't really have to pay if you don't want to.

My theory - it was either a friend or foe.

[Lunarsight]

I think it was probably one of two things:

It was either a rival trying to make Ron Paul look bad, or it was one of Ron's diehard missionaries trying to 'spread the word of Ron Paul' in a way that irritates the largest number of people possible. Some of his disciples are very, very prone to doing that.

I know the Church Of Ron Paul has infested Youtube like a VD sort of plague. Don't get me wrong - I don't think Ron Paul is a bad guy, but some of his followers are absolutely obnoxious if you dare criticize their messiah in any way. I questioned if he may be too old for the Presidency, and got some pretty mean responses. (Some at least tried to give a rational reply, but there also was a lot of ad hominem and strawman fallacy getting tossed around.)

Re:My theory - it was either a friend or foe.

[Lunarsight]

Yea, because that post was totally measured, objective, and not at all obnoxious. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine. After watching the RP supporters hijack many comments section threads on Youtube, many of which had nothing to do with politics, my venting is more than justified.

If you feel what I say above is not on the mark, by all means - visit Youtube and see for yourself.

Me calling them a church is sadly very accurate. Most of the comments are little more than touchy-feely emoting. It drives left-brained people like myself crazy. We're not sold on a feeling. We want to know what his platform is.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[JoeFromPhilly]

The housing bubble was due to greed and bad loans, not interest rate manipulation.

Greed wouldn't have mattered if they couldn't get the loans, and the loans wouldn't have even existed without the interest rate manipulations. When the federal funds rate is low it encourages people to take out loans and do more risky investing. All that money tries to find a home somewhere, and it causes a bubble. It's one of the most predictable aspects of the modern economy.

Blaming the financial problems of the past few years on greed is stupid; it's not as if greed just started showing up in people recently.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[Carewolf]

Inflation is bad for the 'have's and good for the 'have not's. The last category basically means 99% of us, those who lives of loans and pays mortage.

Fractional Reserve Banking.

[Colin Smith]

Historically, inflation occurs regardless of whether there is a precious metal or other substance backing the currency. Um... I suggest you look up "Fractional Reserve Banking". No paper currency in the western world has ever been 100% backed by gold, even under the gold standard. The banks have always issued more notes and coins than there is gold backing it and your government have allowed the practice. This causes inflation.

Incidentally, you are aware that there isn't enough gold for the government to buy enough for 100% backing of the currency, right? Really, are you sure? At what rate? Doesn't that simply imply that the dollar's value has rather a long way to fall? How much gold is a bit of paper worth?

Ultimately there is just one magical attribute which gold possesses that a fiat currency does not...

Scarcity.

It's this scarcity which prevents inflation. Without the scarcity of something like gold, the politicians will always be able to simply print another... well, we're now into the trillions. How soon will we have to use zillions? How many zeros is that?

Essentially the real problem is Fractional Reserve Banking. It's basically legalised counterfeiting... A Ponzi scheme of massive proportions. The switch to full reserve banking is needed to prevent inflation along with the gold standard or some other way of preventing the arbitrary creation of money and therefore the theft of a person's time and effort.

Those of you with a Libertarian bent can switch to a gold or other commodity based standard today. There are several Digital Gold Currencies which would insulate you against inflation.

Re:Save the GOP ... from itself? Screw that!

[mattwarden]

Everything you talked about is 2001 on. Did you not read my post, or did you just not pay any attention to my point?

Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur

[Elemenope]

No, fall. The 2000 primaries were terrible to him, and he changed in agonizing increments since then from principled maverick to administration lapdog. I mean, this is a man who was literally beaten by a rumor that the kids he had adopted were really illegitimates. After having bled and fought for this country (and served it in many capacities) that has got to be devastating. After that, he started to listen to all the wrong advice, and lost his instinct for being different (since it punished him so much in the election and even afterward).

Every person has a breaking point beyond which disillusionment and cynicism are inevitable. Public service (no matter how much, or how deservedly we pile on to politicians) is a fairly dehumanizing and unforgiving profession. That the guy finally lost his way is no reflection of his "true colors" in any legitimate sense I can think of.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[knewter]

This is one of my problems with the minimum wage. We essentially DO tie a dollar to ten minutes of labor right now with the minimum wage. When we up the minimum wage, we basically revalue a dollar as worth 6 minutes of labor.

Inflation by any other name...

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[morgan_greywolf]

You don't seem to understand the difference between racism and racial discrimination. They are also not the same thing. Discrimination is where there is preferential treatment for one race over another, while racism is the belief that your race is superior to that of others.

Affirmative action is racial discrimination, for sure. Whether or not it is racism depends on whether you believe that the underlying reason for it is that minorities can't obtain employment, advancement or schooling is due the minorities' inabilities or due to external forces beyond the minorities' control. It's a fine line, and there is at least some degree of underlying assumption by many who support affirmative action that minorities cannot succeed in the current environment due to problems within their own ranks. That belief, IMHO, is racism.

Stupid point

[p4nther2004]

But at an exchange rate of $2800 for one ounce of gold, that's the fastest way to devalue the dollar.

Don't believe me?

1. Buy gold at $800 an oz.
2. Sell gold at $2800 an oz to the US Gov.
3. Profit!

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[erroneus]

Let me say that "just because they say so, doesn't make it so."

Next, let's have a look at this:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects. ...both public purposes and PRIVATE ASPECTS?! Can any other government entity be purported in this way?! "Secret aspects" I would hate, but would be forced to accept. But PRIVATE?! Come on! And the history of the Federal reserve bank system goes way back. This is the third or fourth incarnation depending on how you look at it.

And you say nothing about the clear practice of "I'm taking out a loan, and YOU are going to pay for it"? If you think that's okay, please forward your personal information to me and I'll provide you with a list of loans and debts I have for you to pay back.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[mrscorpio]

There's the socialist twist again. Allowing people to fail (or die in the streets, as your hyperbole states) does not equate to me WANTING them to die in the streets. I contribute to charities that ensure this doesn't happen, and would contribute more were the government not taking so much of my pay. I have no doubt that the private charities (such as churches and the United Way) would pick up the slack thanks to concerned citizens like yourself were the government to stop operating charity by coercion tomorrow.

Also, "promoting the general welfare" does not equate to "ensuring the general welfare". You "promote" it, in America, by giving everyone the opportunity to make something of themself. If Social Security is such a great idea and necessary function of our government, then why did it take 150 years to put it into place? Well, here's some choice quotes by our founding fathers:

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in a letter to James Robertson:
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." James Madison, "Letter to Edmund Pendleton,"
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Attila Dimedici]

The American people, through their representatives (Congress), take out a loan which the American people are going to have to pay through their taxes. How is that me taking out a loan that you are going to have to pay? And BTW the loan is not from the Federal Reserve, but from the people who buy government bonds.
The Federal debt is conceptually no different than the debt of a corporation. In corporate debt, the stockholders, through their representatives (the Board of Directors), take out a loan that the stockholders are going to have to pay through the assets/profits of the company.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[ArmyOfFun]

Low inflation (between 1 and 3% annually) actually has positive results for everyone except hoarders. As you noted, if you're in debt, your principal gets eaten away by inflation. If you have money, you have two choices, invest your money or hoard it. If you hoard it, inflation will eat away at it. So, (smart) people and companies with money will try to invest it somewhere and get returns that beat or at least meet parity with inflation. Many of those investments, at some point, translate into more jobs and goods (including cheaper loans) for everyone.

The only argument I buy against government controlled inflation is that it implicitly takes away one's freedom to hoard money. You can still hoard cash, but it's going to cost you. The question for me then becomes is that freedom to hoard worth the toll it would take on the overall economy? Not to mention the instability and unpredictability that would result if we went back to a gold standard.

Re:Funding only mega-corporations can provide

[EMeta]

He'll turn down NAMBLA money. Everyone turns down NAMBLA money.

Take your own advice

[nunyadambinness]

jcr, next time you try an ad hominem remark, take a step back and consider how it looks.

Next time you get caught lying seth, don't issue a diatribe. Consider how it looks, that the best excuse you give for your lies is that they were "taken out of context".

No one likes a crybaby, crybaby.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[EvilNight]

Ron wants to legalize competition among US currency. The market will decide which currencies are needed and where they best fit. I can't see any disadvantages to having a fiat system AND a gold-standard currency of some kind for long term savings. Best of both worlds, makes the entire argument moot.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[erroneus]

Are you hoping to be modded "Funny"? "The American people, through their representative, take out a loan..." Are you kidding me? We don't have a democracy. It's barely a republic. The people 'acting on behalf of the American people' are not acting out or on the will of the people. Further, look here --> http://www.investorguide.com/igu-article-313-monetary-policy-and-the-fed-introduction-to-the-federal-reserve-and-its-structure.html

Second, the Federal Reserve System acts as the government's bank. The tax system processes incoming and outgoing payments through a Federal Reserve checking account. The Federal Reserve also buys and sells government securities. The Fed even issues the U.S. currency, although the actual production of the currency is handled elsewhere.

"Buying and selling" those securities you spoke of. They are the securities broker of the US? Nothing related to money in the US goes untouched by the Federal Reserve Banks. And as to whether or not the Federal Reserve Bank is government or not, why are the buildings these institutions are housed in PRIVATE property and not GOVERNMENT property? There is something very separate from the government about the Federal Reserve Bank but they do an awful lot to give the appearance of being government without explicitly saying so. You cannot have "privately held," "privately controlled," or "privately interested" parts of a public government. There is Private and Public. Those two things are mutually exclusive.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Archeopteryx]

My wife says the mere thought creeps her out!

Sorry guy, but your definition is wrong

[nunyadambinness]

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racism

    1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

It appears YOU are the one who doesn't know what racism is, and are trying to create a definition that supports your points while ignoring the real definition.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Archeopteryx]

I think you need to examine what he has REALLY said, and what his voting record REALLY is.

Hint; He pretends to have an anti-war voting record, and this is a fscking lie.

Flat out wrong.

[stomv]

Ron Paul has about 104,000 donors. His donor-feed is at:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/webservices/REST/fundraiser?name=liberty

It's not clear to me [and I've searched a bit] if that number is total number of unique donors or total number of donations. Other articles touching on the subject are
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/us/politics/06paul.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/10/12/politics/horserace/entry3362383.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=Horserace_3362383

Now... has Ron Paul found the most donors? I don't think so. Barack Obama had 92,000 new contributors in the 3rd Quarter, and has had 350,000+ thus far
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-01-fundraising_N.htm

So in short, cut the crap. Regardless if you appreciate Ron Paul's unique perspectives or think he's a crazy foolish man, don't make things up. Use facts. The truth is out there ;), and in this case it makes it pretty clear that Ron Paul has not had more individual donors than any other candidate in the race.

Re:Flat out wrong.

[truesaer]

Paul's supporters organized a stunt where they coordinated new donors to wait for a while and all donate on the same day. Thus, he had the largest number of new contributors on a single day. Kind of meaningless, but it does get some press and fool people like the OP into thinking Paul has an unusually broad support base. Most of his ideas are sheer lunacy, I think it is like Ralph Nader...people want to vote "none of the above" and Ron Paul is a safe way to do that without actually risking him getting into office.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[MrNaz]

The Federal debt is conceptually no different than the debt of a corporation. In corporate debt, the stockholders, through their representatives (the Board of Directors), take out a loan that the stockholders are going to have to pay through the assets/profits of the company.

In a corporation, the management has to report fully to the stockholders. The US government's stockholders (the citizens of the US of A) don't get within a country mile of a glimpse at the largest budget items (defense/security items)

In a corporation, the stockholders can vote the management out. Democrats and Republicans don't seem to have any meaninhfully different spending policies, so an unpopular spending policy can't be voted out.

Most importantly, in a corporation, there are SEC limits on how deeply a company can go into debt before it is considered insolvent. The US govt however is far more deeply in debt than any company would ever be allowed to go, yet it continues to operate at the pleasure of it's creditors who know that it is not the dollars that are really valuable, its the perpetual servitude of the shareholders (citizens) of its debtor who are now effectively working for their banking system overlords. There's a Slashdot pun in there somewhere...

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Mateo_LeFou]

"there isn't enough gold for the government to buy enough for 100% backing of the currency"

I'm not an expert but how do you figure this? Seems like whatever quantity of gold and USD there are in the world, you'll be able to set up a ratio where one backs the other. Unless, of course, there's actually zero gold in the world.

Re:Save the GOP ... from itself? Screw that!

[SlappyBastard]

I'm sorry. Would you like the discussion of everything the GOP has fucked up from Lincoln to Reagan? I was trying to not seem overbearing.

Scarcity of gold is the problem

[spun]

Deflation can be just as much of a problem as inflation. We can control the amount of dollars in circulation so that they reflect the size of the economy. When it gets bigger, more dollars. When it shrinks, less. This strikes a balance between inflation and deflation. With gold, there is only so much of it in circulation, and most new gold produced goes to important industrial applications. So the amount of gold in circulation can not keep up with a fast paced economy, and deflation occurs. People's savings disappears. Bad things happen, just like with inflation, but we have no control.

You overestimate the danger of inflation. Why is it bad, exactly? Why is it worse than deflation?

To top it all off, those industrial applications I mentioned? What do you think will happen to the cost of things that use gold, like computers, when gold is used as currency? In short, the gold standard is a stupid and outmoded idea promulgated by two types of people: those without a basic understanding of economics, and those hoping to profit off of the first group.

Sigh...

[alan_dershowitz]

Fractional reserve banking allows the country to keep operating when people are hoarding money, because banks can still give loans to people to help kickstart the economy by expanding or starting new businesses. It's not a Ponzi scheme by any definition, and I wouldn't call it legalized counterfeiting, just "monetary policy." It's not like it's unconstrained, banks can only loan out a specific multiple more than they have in actual funds in reserve, hence the name "fractional reserve."

It would also be a good idea to note about digital gold currencies that they are unregulated, and the federal government has been harassing some of these companies and freezing funds, so it's probably not a very safe place to put your money if you ever want to get it back. I don't agree with the federal government's actions, but it's still not safe.

Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur

[Warshadow]

I'm not a McCain fan, but the one thing he has been consistent on is torture. He's always been opposed to it. Most likely because he was tortured while he was a POW in Vietnam. In fact he was railing on some of the other GOP candidates at the CNN/Youtube "debate" who were insisting that water boarding was not torture. He essentially made the point that having been through it himself he can without a doubt say it is torture.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[cloakable]

Oh no! I'm English, with public healthcare!

Wait, if I'm enslaved, where are my chains? Or my forced labour?

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Exactly. Ron Paul, while on many issues looks wonderful, he wants to dismantle the entire federal government which would cause serious problems.

If you think the free market is going to solve all of our problems, I think you need to look at the current trends in the corporate world and how they sell out the people and cut corners on quality wherever possible. The entire China manufacturing situation is a great example of the dangers associated with allowing the business world to run things

On "voting smart in '08" ....

[King_TJ]

VERY true, but the unfortunate reality is - you're preaching to the choir here. There's a reason Ron Paul has been most successful in the "Internet community". The more intelligent, intellectual types can follow the reasons behind some of his "more radical" beliefs, like abolishing the federal reserve, and phasing out the IRS. But those concepts require a fair bit of reading and long-term thinking to see how they're plausible.

By the same token, avid net users who read blog sites and news sites (like Slashdot!) are FAR more likely than average to select a candidate based on their individual stances, vs. voting for them "just because they told a funny joke" or "were the most stylishly dressed" during a TV appearance.

Re:Save the GOP ... from itself? Screw that!

[mattwarden]

All I said was that I only have a problem with the party since 2001, and you disagree and state a bunch of stuff that the party has done since 2001. So, yes, it would be more effective if you stated your issues with the party PREVIOUS to 2001.

That is all for Argument 101, for today.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Archeopteryx]

You can support Personal Liberty, and I do, without wanting a Corporatocracy, which RP does. (Even if he thinks he doesn't, he is advocating changes that would put Monsanto in charge of Agriculture, and Time/Warner in charge of Education.)

Re:Save the GOP ... from itself? Screw that!

[SlappyBastard]

Why is the stuff from 2001-2007 off the board? It is reasonable to include it if I think it was deliberate and reflects the ongoing purpose of the GOP.

Most of the current GOP fun traces back to Reagan. Especially the absolutely criminal idea of systematic deficit spending. The current alignment of the GOP with southern racists goes back to Nixon. And the fealty of the GOP to big business goes back to the robber barons.

In the entire history of the US there have only been two Republican presidents who weren't a net loss for America: Teddy Roosevelt and Ike. And even there, TR got us way too deep into the international system and Ike wanted to kill the civil rights movement.

And the GOP will get worse, because it is now more reactionary than conservative. The idea that a guy like Ron Paul can save the GOP from itself ignores what the GOP has become since Nixon. The GOP has incorporated too many nativists, too many expansionists and too many activist Christians. And the old TR expansionist wing of the GOP never went away.

In the past the GOP wanted to limit government. But, Nixon brought in the southern wing of the Dems in the late 60s and now the GOP is reactionary, not conservative because that group of people never was true conservative -- they're just assholes. They pick on brain dead people (Terry Schaivo?), they hate on all non-whites, they've run the government itself into the dirt and they want to bomb the world with no real plan.

And once Reagan taught the GOP to be financially irresponsible, the GOP ceased to serve any useful purpose.

Re:Denied connections

[Tsiangkun]

I said not one god damned thing about voting democrat.
Don't put your views in my mouth, my post is on a
Ron Paul. He wants to be president and he associates
with the republican party.

The republicans had complete control of the government.
We know what their party is about, they have shown us.
The republican party is Debt, Katrina, and Iraq.

If Ron Paul is different, then he needs to distance himself
from that party.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[onemorechip]

First of all, the marriage issue is not about individual rights.

That depends. Is marriage a religious institution, or not? If yes, then there certainly is an individual right involved here. If no, then why are we letting the matter of who can marry who be dictated by religious interests? In one case, the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment is at stake. In the other case, the establishment clause is at stake. Which clause do you want to sacrifice?

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[phantomfive]

No i am not the least happy about the coming recession. And no i do not live in the eurozone. Glad to hear it.

Do hold in mind that the looming sub prime crisis all is to blame upon the institution's said to protect your money. I honestly don't know how you can blame this on the federal reserve. The whole issue is caused by people defaulting on their loans. How is the fed responsible for that? Wouldn't the libertarian way of looking at it be to blame the people who acquired loans they couldn't afford?

Now, suppose they only cold print a dollar note for every ounce of gold they have in the reserves? Educate yourself. There are two problems with inflation: the first is that savings will be depleted. This is easy enough to manage, inasmuch as even a decent CD will give you a better interest rate than the rate of inflation. Don't keep all your money in a mattress, and you will be ok.
The other problem is that relative wages will decrease. This is bound to happen eventually, and it is ok. Do you expect the Chinese to always labor at a fraction of the cost? No. As their productivity increases, as their relative value as a worker increases, their wages will increases relative to ours. This will be felt as a valuation of their currency relative to ours, or as a devaluation of their currency relative to ours.

A couple points to ponder:

• If the relative value of currency is so important, why is the European economy in general having so much trouble (cf France)?
• If the valuation of the Euro against the dollar is so important, why haven't all our expenses doubled?
• Don't try to back yourself up by quoting an economic school. It's called 'appeal to authority' and is a logical fallacy, and you will be ignored or mocked appropriately. If any particular school has a worthwhile argument, then use the argument, not their name.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[phantomfive]

I will grant you that the current social security system is probably not the best system, but there will have to be something, and I will tell you why:

The purpose of government is, of course, to do the collective will of the people. For example, it is against the law for me to punch someone in the face, even if they deserve it, and I will be punished accordingly. It could be argued that the government preventing me from doing this is just a nanny state, and that if the guy doesn't want to be punched in the face he should learn to defend himself or learn not to be annoying. (In fact, in some parts of the country it is like this, and I would not be prosecuted for punching people in the face).

Social security, or poverty insurance for old people, is something most people want, in fact, Roosevelt himself didn't particularly push it, it was created by popular demand. Currently, if you pay attention to the rhetoric, most of it centers around how to save social security, not how to dismantle it. If you don't want it, then sorry, I feel for you, but welcome to democracy.

As for healthcare, it is clear that something has to be done. The current system is just lousy: people without insurance wait until they are too sick, then end up going to the emergency room, where they are treated for free (or default on the costs of treatment by going bankrupt), then the government gives subsidy payments to the hospitals. Or sometimes, if it is a more serious disease, they aren't able to get the long term treatment they need and just die. Something needs to be done, whether it is universal health care like in Canada or not, I don't know (nobody deserves a healthcare system like Britain's, that's for sure). Massachusetts has an interesting private-public hybrid system and it will be interesting to see how it works. Eventually something will be established, though, because that's what people want.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[phantomfive]

So, what? Do you want to create a nanny state, where the government is taking care of people and making sure they don't get bad loans? Greed is not new, but it is still the culprit. People got loans where the KNEW the payments would be low for a few years, then would double or triple after a while. They knew they wouldn't be able to afford it, but they got the loans anyway, hoping the housing prices would continue to rise. Do you want me to feel sorry for these people? Not at all. They got what they paid for.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[onemorechip]

If you have a problem with something, please tell us specifically how you are harmed by it. Don't just duck under the cover of "that would be socialism". It may be socialism, or it may not be, but the label doesn't make the point, because socialism (if it is that) is intrinsically neither a good thing nor bad thing. It's bad if it harms more than it helps, but you haven't told us of any harm from "socialized medicine" (which is a misnomer anyway, unless you're talking about a UK-style system).

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[truesaer]

Yes, there was bad business practices and greed all around, but the root cause of the whole thing was bad interest rate manipulation by the federal reserve.

You act as though it was completely shocking and unpredictable that interest rates would rise above the historic lows from a few years ago. Do you really think bankers and financial gurus are that stupid? That they never considered that rates might rise on an ARM they were offering someone with no documentation, no income verification? The housing bubble has been talked about for at least 3 years now. A correction in housing prices was widely considered a strong possibility.

Give me a fucking break. The Fed did not cause the housing crisis. Interest rates are only up 1-2 percent from their lows. If you think that a small increase like that was so inconceivable that the banks couldn't help but make inappropriately risky laons you're mental. Mortgage brokers and real estate agents were telling anyone they could get to listen that they could afford anything, didn't need a down payment, didn't need any income, etc. The lender's job in that situation is to put rational underwriting criteria into place to ensure that they only lend to people who can afford their loans.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Yunzil]

yep but when you've got a metal backed standard you have actual levels that you have to watch and compare to how much money your printing

Sure, and what happens when your economy wants to expand beyond the limits of your gold supply?

in this country we print money like its the cool thing to do

Jesus Christ almighty. The Fed doesn't print money because it's the cool thing to do. They print it because people want to be able to go to the ATM and get some. In other words, they do it because there's a demand for it. Inflation is NOT caused by the Fed printing too many dollar bills.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Yunzil]

For example, the US has a very fragile economy because of national debt and a currency that is no longer backed by a gold standard.

Except that history has so far demonstrated that the economy is not that fragile. And what's so magical about gold? Gold, like anything else, is only worth what other people are willing to give you for it. It's value fluctuates on the international market on a daily basis. If you understand that everything, including gold, only has value in relation to other things, then you might be able to take the tiny step and realize that fiat money is as good as anything else.

This often gets overlooked

It's overlooked because no one cares and it's irrelevant.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[JavaLord]

Yet he still gladly published racist material.

He had about as much to do with publishing 'racist material' as commander taco did with personally publishing your post.

Texas Straw Poll Too

[hitchhacker]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YDnWT4gCJSE

They just informed everyone that they have PROOF that an ENTIRE BUS FULL of Ron Paul DELEGATES from San Antonio were prevented from voting. They arrived on time and were denied. After another bus pulled up and they were ushered in through the side entrance.
-metric

Offtopic: Ron Paul, constitutional authorization

[sabt-pestnu]

I know it's offtopic, but I had to comment anyway...

since he votes against federal funding for anything not authorized by the constitution The 'commerce clause' has been used as an umbrella for almost everything that the federal government does except the military.

Did Ron Paul vote for Social Security increases? Federal Highway funds? Emergency Relief funds for Katrina? Show me the constitutional mandate. Preamble doesn't count; it just states intent, not implementation.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Yunzil]

Personally, I think that the dollar should be backed in gold, silver, steel, copper, oil, cotton and a bunch of other commodities.

Why?

But the current system where the reserve prints up money out of thin air is ridiculous.

The amount of currency in circulation is insignificant compared to the amount of money out there. Money includes things like checking and savings accounts. The Fed only prints currency because there's a demand for it, ie, people make a withdrawal from their accounts to get cash to go to the bar. The Fed doesn't create money. Banks create money.

Why? Because if the US government defaults on it's $9Trillion debt, then the $US will collapse completely.

Let's do some math. In 2001 it was estimated that there have been 145,000 metric tons of gold ever mined throughout history. At 32,150.72 troy ounces to the ton, that's 4.66 billion troy ounces. On Oct 1, the price of gold hit a record high of $850 per ounce, which means if the United States owned all the gold ever mined, we would have had just shy of $4 trillion worth of gold.

So that still leaves us $5 trillion short.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[Yunzil]

Cause never, ever, ever, in history has commodity pricing shifted very suddenly.

The price of gold has tripled in the last 6 years.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Yunzil]

Oops, slight error. The $850 per ounce price was reached in 1980. It's less now, which just makes the shortfall worse.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Entropius]

1) Because the 14th Amendment makes it a national issue, if you want a Constitutional justification.

2) I'm guessing that Clinton and Edwards only attend church and give lip service to religious beliefs because it would be political suicide not to, and while Obama appears to be sincere about his religion it's a less harmful brand (UCC).

Re:Reagan has been historically revised to be godl

[michaelmalak]

Part of the e-mail exchange that I did not include was about the history of the two-party system.

The Federalist/Whig/Republican Party is the Party of Hamilton and represents central government and central banking. It is the antithesis of freedom. I call it the fascist party.

The Democratic Party was the Party of Jefferson and represented anti-Federalism and libertarianism. It got seduced by Communism at the turn of the century.

Thus, starting around 1900, the choice was between fascism and communism.

After WWII, the Republicans adopted a marketing strategy. To counter communism, they put on the cloak of the old Democratic Party, libertarianism/anti-Federalism, while secretly still being fascist/Federalist. It worked -- I was seduced, at least until 1998 when a lot of information started pouring onto the Internet. Even Ron Paul was seduced, as he campaigned for Reagan in 1976.

In 2000, the Republican Party started throwing off the cloak, and returned to naked power/fascism/Federalism.

A side note I forgot to mention -- the Democratic Party, which became the Communism Party around 1900, became the Party of Death around 1970.

In addition to being seduced by the Republican cloak of libertarianism, Ron Paul was also pro-life, so those two facts together made the Republican Party a better fit for him. After his failed bid for the presidency in 1988 as a Libertarian Party candidate, he realized he needed to run under one of the two major parties, and stuck with the Republican Party into which he was seduced in the 1970's.

In the presidential debates this year, Ron Paul keeps repeating how Eisenhower, Nixon, and even Bush claimed they were anti-war. Ron Paul is trying to tap into what Republican voters thought they were voting for in the past.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Goaway]

He put it under his name, no? CmdrTaco does not do that.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[OakLEE]

The gold and silver clause was written into the constitution because the framers had recent, painful experience with the dangers of fiat currency.

Wrong, the gold and silver standard was written so that states could not create fiat currency. If you remember, during the Articles of Confederation, the big problem was not the depreciation of the Continental Dollar itself, but the fact that the states were creating their own currencies and use those to pay down their debt. This had the secondary effect of undermining the Continental Dollar, because no one would use it or take it when they could use the state currency instead (remember, states governments had more control over daily life and respect then the federal government did at that time.) This clause prevented the states from doing this, by requiring them to back their currencies, with something, which prevented them from printing money to pay off debts (i.e., hyperinflation).

Additionally, interpreting the clause to apply to the Federal Government is absurd. The clause, located in Article I, Section 10 clearly states that, "No state shall... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts." Source. It makes no prohibition of federal government's ability to create a fiat currency or requires it to back its currency with gold or silver. As further evidence of its textual limitation, Article I, Section 10's purpose is to place limits on the states, and it would be illogical to construe it place those same restrictions on the Federal Government. For example, that very same clause also states that no state shall "enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation." If you interpret this clause to apply to the Federal Government, then you have effectively prohibited it from entering into peace treaties, the Geneva Convention, NATO, and other multi-national agreements. What sense does it make if Congress can declare war, but then not agree to a treaty to end it?

The scope and limitations of Congress's power to pass legislation is laid out in Sections 8 and 9, and nowhere there does it require a commodity backed currency.

For extra credit, can you tell us who benefits from inflation?

Just to take a quick shot at this, I assume you mean that creditors (i.e., anyone who borrows money) benefit from inflation, and that the US as a creditor is paying off its debts by making its money worth less (not necessarily worthless) through inflation. This is true and I won't disagree, but your also missing the point that everyone benefits from steady, predictable, low inflation. Prices that rise in a predictable manner, allow for us to discount them in our economic decisions. Specifically, it allows banks to factor in inflation when lending money, which allows them to predict their expected return on investment from lending that money, creating a stable credit market, which is one of the primary driving forces of our economy.

One of the great problems with the gold standard is that it will only hold inflation in check so long as the supply of gold in the world stays steady. If there is a sudden increase (e.g., a new vein is discovered) , or decrease (e.g., a shipwreck) then prices of gold back assets will have to swing dramatically to deal with it. This creates rapid inflation or deflation, which wrecks havoc credit markets that depend on predictable returns. This increased risk takes the form of increases interest rates for everyone, which makes it harder for everyone to borrow money, negatively affecting economic growth. (This works because businesses borrow money if they think they can get a greater rate of return on it than the interest they are paying for it. This activity is what generates economic growth. Thus when interest rates are low, more people borrow because it becomes more profitable to do so. If interest rates are perpetually high, it becomes less profitable to borrow money and less people take the economic risk of borrowing, decreasing the potential for growth.)

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[evanbd]

It certainly is a false dichotomy on the face of it, however it appears to be the closest approximation to the options we are presented. Specifically, those who advocate backed currencies seem to consistently advocate poor economic policies in many areas. There are few politicians advocating economic policies I like in all respects, but the ones I like better advocate maintaining our current fiat currency (though only by default, as they don't address the issue directly). As such, I will choose between the options presented.

I would dearly love to be able to vote for individual policies (assuming there was an effective way to do that...), but I can't. Therefore I'll weigh the options I'm presented, and I prefer the ones that don't include gold-backed currencies. I actually intend to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, but his economic policies are not one of the reasons for that.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[evanbd]

Sure you could set up a ratio. The problem is that the amount of wealth represented by the currency currently in circulation (note wealth != money) vastly exceeds the current market value of the available gold. So you artifically drive up the price of gold so it can back the currency. The problem is that now the value of the gold backing the currency is exactly as artificial, no more or less, as the fiat currency you just left. What, then, is the point? You've gone from one fiat currency to another, because the value of the thing I can exchange my currency for is far less than the value of the currency -- so that exchange is meaningless.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Archeopteryx]

Throughout history there have been gold backed currencies. Of course that means there was no inflation ever, right?

If you think that you are stupider than Ron Paul, because even he does not believe this. But he does believe that you Marks will continue to give him millions.

Suckers.

Re:big deal, he'll move us to the gold standard

[ceejayoz]

Had a look at just how much the currency has been inflated since the Federal Reserve was established? That's only an automatically bad thing if economic growth and wages don't similarly inflate.

Growth's outpacing of inflation has resulted in a higher quality of living. In addition, the severity and frequency of recessions has decreased - see, in particular, the average numbers at the bottom for peak-to-trough (severity) and previous-trough-to-peak (frequency).

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Thing 1]

You want to tie the dollar to something real? Then tie a dollar to five minutes of labor.

This is changing fairly quickly though. As technology advances and people begin to self-modify for improvements (speed, strength, mental capacity), the "value" of five minutes of labor will go up dramatically, especially because of the latter.

One thing from the Foresight Institute's books is that with nanotechnology, a machine the size of a sugar cube could have 1,000,000 times the power of the human brain. You can fit around 2,000 sugar cubes in your skull, so if you were able to convert your brain, in place, to the more powerful thinking medium, you'd be thinking about 2 billion times "faster" than before. This person would be worth 2 billion dollars a day. I'm not being facetious; a person who had undergone that transformation would be able to create world-changing technologies every day.

And at that point we'll be able to create thinking matter to do our jobs for us, so money won't really matter. We'll have 3D printers that can make more printers, so everyone will be able to create their own thinking matter to "work" for them; the future will consist mostly of relationships and entertainment.

And, even before getting all cosmic and nano, we can just look at today's jobs: there is generally a 100-fold difference between the janitor and the CEO, so whose "five minutes of labor" are we talking about?

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[ceejayoz]

But the effect of tying the dollar to *something* will be just as strong. At least if we stick with it, it won't be $3,100 next year and $3,300 the year after that. Uh, inflation happens with commodity-backed money, too. See Silver Thursday in 1980:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,920875,00.html

... the Hunts' silver-buying activities, which triggered the worst financial panic in nearly 20 years; silver that had cost more than $50 per oz. in January slumped to $10.20 per oz. in late March.

Re:What a nonsensical comment

[Almahtar]

Dude, that doesn't even parse. By definition, a bad thing is, well, bad. It is not better than nothing. If it is better than nothing, it is good, by the definition of the words "good" and "bad." Actually, it's funny how that works - change tends to spawn more change. If bad change happens then we'll do something about it and replace it with good change. If nothing happens it tends to continue happening. If someone jumps into office and fucks things up royally it'll be fixed quickly. I fear the "everything's fine... nothing to see here..." (while the world spirals) deadlock more than making a few mistakes.

Oh, and I'll look up Dennis Kucinich.

Re:A bad choice of words at the end of your commen

[Almahtar]

I'd say that's an accurate correction. That's what happens when I drink and talk politics. I meant to point out that fear of making a mistake (and doing nothing) is a bigger evil at this point than just making a few mistakes, not insinuate weakness in anybody's platform.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[NickNameCreateAccoun]

>I honestly don't know how you can blame this on the federal reserve. The whole issue is caused by people defaulting on their loans. How is the fed responsible for that? Wouldn't the libertarian way of looking at it be to blame the people who acquired loans they couldn't afford?

My apologies, i did not try to blame this mess on the federal reserve thou i do mean they are implicated. As you know, when one find oneself in a conversation about federal reserve and the gold standard things do tend to get a little heated.

There is one angle where in the low interest rates helped to build up the looming credit crisis (sub prime crisis)From this angle i blame the federal reserve. From another angle, one would assume when you are about to buy a house you would read up on the terms of the loan. Sad to say, there are some people who failed to do so. In the third angle one could go after the lenders of these loans, i have some horrific examples lined up here to back up my argument.

But since this is a discussion about the gold standard or lack thereof, i will continue to argue from that standpoint. There will be a recession, the fed are going to print a huge amount of money to try to curb things up. Since im a follower of the Milton Friedman school of economics i do believe this i going to start a inflationary process. I do not like the sound of these printing presses, call me a biggot if you like.

So from my standpoint, i am about to get hit from the madness other people brought on themselves. Not directly, since i don't live in the united states. But indirectly, since the country i live in do export a large sum of goods to the united states. Now remembering the tulip crisis of holland. http://www.stock-market-crash.net/tulip-mania.htm
Even with or without a gold standard a lot of innocent people where hit by the craze of the times. I want to minimize that target area, yes my business may be bad for some times due to the failing markets. But no, there are no means for the federal reserve to further bring havoc upon me, this by starting the printing presses (if one would have pegged it to gold standard)

I thank you for your link about the gold standard but i have already read it and some other material concerning this subject. Please keep in mind that I'm struggling throe bot language and culture barriers to get my message throe

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[onemorechip]

I assume you are the same AC I was responding to the first time. You aren't making an argument at all, you are avoiding the issue you were purporting to address. Simply rejecting something by saying "that is socialism" or "that is relativism" or "that is utilitarianism" is nothing more than a cover for not knowing what you are talking about. If you can't identify how you are harmed by something, you have no case against it. I for one am sick of people claiming to be harmed by this or that, but when confronted about those claims, have no answer but "because it's (insert favorite bugaboo term here)".

Our country is supposed to be founded on my principles, not yours.

Got much of an ego?

Re:Save the GOP ... from itself? Screw that!

[mattwarden]

> Why is the stuff from 2001-2007 off the board?

??? I tried to explain this already. I am saying that there is a difference between the pre-2001 Republican party and the post-2001 Republican party. I already agree that the latter is shit. So listing things that happened after 2001 is just going to have me agreeing and wondering why you are suggesting you feel differently from me.

Re:Save the GOP ... from itself? Screw that!

[SlappyBastard]

The reason I think we have differing views is because you think all this is a fluke.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[JoeFromPhilly]

I have no sympathy for these people and don't believe that the mortgage market should be regulated. That's not really what I was saying at all. I also certainly wouldn't want to bail out stupid financial decisions: it begets more stupid financial decisions and is stealing from people that showed restraint and common sense.

What I am saying is that I don't think we would have seen the poor investment over the past few years if interest rates weren't artificially low. When interest rates were lowered people raised the prices of their homes because buyers only look at their monthly payment, less interest but more principal. Typically, when rates are raised again this trend will reverse itself and real estate will get marginally cheaper.

That's obviously not what happened, though. People saw that the value went up XX% (because of the low interest rates) and bought into that continuing forever. It's completely stupid and greedy, but they always do. So they made it reality by using exotic mortgages that simulated ever ridiculously lower interest rates, even negative interest rates. And then when they reset and had to pay the real market rate for their risky decision, well, you get what we have here today.

What I am saying is that you should consider that interest rate manipulation is actually a really big deal and is at the root of a lot of these problems. Furthermore, these malinvestments end up costing everyone, even people not involved in them.

Scarcity of gold is the desired characteristic

[Colin Smith]

We can control the amount of dollars in circulation so that they reflect the size of the economy. When it gets bigger, more dollars. When it shrinks, less. Do you really believe that works? Look around you. What you have is perpetual inflation of the money supply regardless of the economy. While the ideal would be neither inflation nor deflation I don't believe it's possible. Politicians and banks are simply untrustworthy. It's always expedient to spend a little more, and more, and more.

You overestimate the danger of inflation. Why is it bad, exactly? Why is it worse than deflation? Inflation is bad because it's theft, exactly. You don't think theft is bad? Inflation is the removal of the value someone has stored in money, without their permission.

Inflation moves value from the average person to the wealthy, it centralises the wealth (and power) in the economy in fewer and fewer hands. The growth in government and the growth in corporate power go hand in hand with control of and the the growth of the supply of money. The average person ignorantly and naively try to use money as a store of value. The wealthy don't. They use property, shares, commodities etc. All things which inflate in value with the currency. Inflation causes wealth to be speculated on whatever is going to increase in value most (tech stocks, property), rather than invested usefully, and the speculators are rewarded for the behaviour at the expense of everyone else. Wages increase at whatever the CPI is currently. 2% per year? The true level of inflation makes this a perpetual pay cut, and with poverty comes disenfranchisement.

What do you think will happen to the cost of things that use gold, like computers, when gold is used as currency? Frankly, I don't care whether gold specifically is used or not. It's just the most likely candidate. The other thing is I don't give a toss what happens to computers or things that use gold as part of the manufacture. If I'm losing 10% of my savings every year, whether computers use gold or copper is of little consequence to me.

In short, the gold standard is a stupid and outmoded idea promulgated by two types of people: those without a basic understanding of economics Really? Economics professors without a basic understanding of economics?

There's no such thing as perfect money, and actually, no need for a gold standard at all. With the Digital Gold Currencies individuals can take advantage of gold as a currency right now, ignoring the inflation around them.

In the last two years, gold has increased in cost from around $530 per ounce to $800 per ounce. If you were being paid in gold or your value was stored in gold you would personally have profited to around 50%. In fact it's everyone else who is losing out as their currency is being devalued.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[cloakable]

You can't work without working for someone else. I.e., you cannot provide for your family without being forced to provide for other's families.
Isn't this true anyway? Say you're self employed. You build furniture. You build a table and a set of chairs for family X. You've provided for family X (a table and a set of chairs is hardly nothing, after all.). As you hopefully got paid, you will be able to provide for your family as well.

Unless your work is stealing. Then you will be able to provide for your family without providing for others. But that's the only occupation I can think of where in providing for yourself, you provide nothing for others.I have a right to work AND not be enslaved.

I have a right to work AND not be enslaved.
Have a nice life stealing then. I'm told it can be quite a lucrative lifestyle.

Our banking system is a Ponzi scheme.

[Colin Smith]

Fractional reserve banking allows the country to keep operating when people are hoarding money, because banks can still give loans to people to help kickstart the economy by expanding or starting new businesses. The fractional reserve system steals value from people's bank accounts and wage packets to inflate the economy, giving the value to someone else. When people hoard money under a gold standard, it's supply decreases and value increases; prices fall. Eventually an equilibrium is reached where their need for money is met by their need for products. The money is then spent. The economy doesn't freeze up. The money is spent on things of value rather than crap.

If people want to loan out their money they can still do so under a full reserve system, like the gold standard. They simply won't have access to that money while it is loaned out.

It's not a Ponzi scheme by any definition, and I wouldn't call it legalized counterfeiting, just "monetary policy." It's not like it's unconstrained, banks can only loan out a specific multiple more than they have in actual funds in reserve, hence the name "fractional reserve." Credit has to continue expanding in order for the fractional reserve system to function, debt is an exponential function, to pay the debts new larger loans have to be constantly taken out to pay off the interest and the old loans. As the credit system continues to expand it requires additional people to take out loans. Eventually, you start loaning money to those who really can't afford it. Then the system collapses in a sort of hmmm... credit, crunch.

Ponzi schemes operate in exactly the same way. They require continual exponential expansion to function.

It would also be a good idea to note about digital gold currencies that they are unregulated, and the federal government has been harassing some of these companies and freezing funds, so it's probably not a very safe place to put your money if you ever want to get it back. I don't agree with the federal government's actions, but it's still not safe. And by the same note, putting money in the bank isn't safe either. The federal government freezes bank accounts too... The reason banks must have state regulation is their fractional reserves. They are by definition, insolvent. They require government regulation to prevent them from folding. Without government regulation all banks would fold. DGCs on the other hand hold 100% reserves, they can satisfy any and all requests for redemption, they don't need government regulation. It's a fundamentally more secure structure.

Re:What a nonsensical comment

[spun]

Too true. Hungover on a Saturday morning, so that is all, for now.

Re:Save the GOP ... from itself? Screw that!

[mattwarden]

I don't think it's a "fluke". I think the party changed directions at 2001. The party used to be about non-intervention and avoiding nation building and small government and local control of public schools and individual liberties and lower income taxes etc. Then Bush comes (and campaigns on this platform, btw) and intervenes in Iraq for no reason, engages in nation building, creates the largest increase in government in a long time, gives control of public schools to the federal government, significantly curtails individual liberties (to the point where the Democrats are now the front-runners here!), and spends tax money like crazy.

Maybe you feel like the party always sucked. All I am saying is that I was on board with the platform until 2001, when it seemed to reverse itself on most of the important issues.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[onemorechip]

The Federalist Papers were not written with *you* in mind.

Re:Save the GOP ... from itself? Screw that!

[SlappyBastard]

Curtailing civil liberties is the hallmark of reactionary conservativism -- a brand of conservative America never gave power to before Nixon decide the GOP should adopt the KKK once the Democrats fumbled the racist vote in the south. That was an overt choice by the Republican Party machine, and one that was reinforced by Reagan and Bush 2. The religious right hasn't helped the cause either (Schaivo, anyone?) "spends tax money like crazy" = Reagan, also. In fact, Bush's father tried to torpedo the deficit spending of Reaganomics when he called it "voodoo economics" during the GOP debates. Obviously Bush 2 learned a critical lesson that his father missed: Americans prefer childish spending and childish tax cutting. Dude, if you want a real conservative government, vote Democrat. Bill Clinton and Jack Kennedy did more for the conservative cause than any of the jokers the GOP has pimped since they got blown off the map in 1932.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[cloakable]

Perhaps, or perhaps I'm just a red commie liberal - actually, I am a liberal - and from the UK standard of that political position, which is far more left than the US version. Our conservative = your liberal. And guess what? Nobody in the UK considers theirselves to be 'enslaved', having to pay national insurance payments, or to support the NHS, or any one of half a dozen public services. You don't want to pay for public services? Go live in a country without them. No military, no police, no government, no public healthcare, none of the many things provided by your government, by your money.

I support publice services, because the alternative could be real slavery.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Copid]

To some extent, you're right. The Federal Reserve banks are technically privately held corporations. The structure is more complicated than most public / private partnerships, but at the end of the day, the agenda is set by government appointees. So I guess my question to you is, so what?

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Copid]

I think that the fundamental question is, "Who was too loose with credit?" Certainly, the Fed lowered interest rates, and there was a lot of money sloshing around, but that, in and of itself, can't explain what happened. The fact that we're seeing fallout with only a minimal change in interest rates (look how close we are to the historically low rates that peopl blame this mess on) indicates to me that it was a banking industry that was extremely short sighted that caused the real problem. A more likely explanation for me is the sudden popularity of strange financial instruments like negative amortization mortgages and how they affected mortgage backed securities.

Seriously, the lending industry has been dealing with fluctuating interest rates forever (and don't think for a moment that doing away with the Fed would change that a bit). I find it a lot harder to believe that lenders couldn't see a 1-2% increase over historically low interest rates coming than that the mortgage backed securities market underestimated the impact of the sudden ridiculous relaxation of loan standards. By lowering loan standards and speculating that they'd be able to get a chunk of the yield on an obvious home bubble, the private industry loosened up the credit purse strings far more than the Fed did. The fact that a cottage lending industry that specialized in putting out and selling crappy loans existed at all tells me that the market for high risk debt was more than enough to sustain itself.

Your explanation only makes sense to me if all of those bad loans were marginal investments that were made after the good investments were made. By all appearances, there were plenty of people making these high risk loans instead of sensible investments. That screams "market preference" and "speculative bubble" to me.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Copid]

If all that stuff is so wonderful, why can't supporting it be voluntary?

Because they don't work nearly as well that way. HTH.

We had a military, a police force, fire-fighting services and an education system before there was a penny of Federal income tax in this country

You've made a leap from "services were paid for by other types of taxes" to "paying for services should be voluntary." I'm not sure I see the connection.

As Ron Paul likes to point out, abolishing the income tax today would leave the government with as much money as it received in the year 2000. Hardly crippling.

A quick glance at sources of federal tax revenues puts individual income tax at roughly 50% of total receipts. I have a hard time believing that total federal tax receipts have doubled (in real terms) since 2000, so I have no idea where Congressman Paul gets that idea.

Re:Denied connections

[Copid]

Are you kidding me? Tell me, really, what is the difference between voting Republican and voting Democrat.

I suppose it depends on the candidate. Are you suggesting that if the 2000 elections had gone the other way, we'd be in exactly the same situation we're in now? Really?

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[Copid]

1. Yeah, it can be harder to get free men to do your bidding than slaves. I hear you.

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who'd rather be "free men" living on voluntary taxation at late 19th century levels of economic development instead of enjoying the economic booms brought to us by railroads, interstate highways, and shipping without fear of piracy. I can see the temptation in that it's so darned philosophically pure, but then again, so is--gasp--communism! What's the old saying, "It works really badly in theory but great in practice"?

Ron Paul is only campaigning to run the Federal government, so those are the only taxes at issue right now. My argument is merely a response to those who suggest that without Federal taxation we would lack basic services.

No, that's certainly true. You can move taxes all over the place and still be OK. Some people would just have to suck it, but that's life. Sure, the USSR probably would have settled in Alaska due to its lack of a decent military, but it would have worked out reasonably well in general.

I do additionally maintain that paying for services should be voluntary (It amazes me how anyone could possibly think otherwise... you do realize you are arguing for involuntary servitude here, don't you? Arguing for it!) and that this is a matter of principle, not expediency. It may indeed be more difficult to support services on a voluntary basis. So be it - what is right and just is rarely the easiest thing.

Don't you dare steal any of the positive externalities from my services, though. We'll have to come up with a good way for those of us who have the services to keep the people who don't have them from reaping any of the benefits. I can think of a few third world nations in Africa that have such systems, but there's usually a pretty high overhead in the number of AK-47s that they use. A police force that's beholden to only a small group of people always results in a healthy outcome, in my experience.

Feel free to argue based on "what's right" in your moral framework. That's the problem I generally see with Libertarians--they start with a great theory (the right to property is an important right and should be respected more than it is now) and turn that into the only important theory. I happen to see a booming economy and the fact that I'm wealthy and safe compared to the people who came before me as a worthwhile consideration as well. In reality, your ideologically pure world works out most closely in reality to map to warlord driven, impoverished nations of the third world, just as in reality, the brilliant purity of communism maps to failed states like North Korea. Enjoy your ideological purity, but don't lose track of your AK-47 while you pump your butter churn.

It looks like several people have gleefully discovered that it would actually take us back to closer to 1995 levels.

I'm having a hard time finding good data that isn't broken somehow. Is that in real dollars? How does it relate to population growth? My guess is that the curves flatten out significantly. I'm not saying that the federal budget can't be cut tremendously. I am pointing out that anybody who thinks that it will be easy or that the Great Leap Forward won't have huge fallout in the real world that most of us inhabit is a crackpot or an ideologue no less dangerous than any number of people whose novel economic systems crashed other societies.

Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia

[scbysnx]

because it's shiny (and yes that obviously matters to people it always has) and it can't be grown

Re:Denied connections

[mattwarden]

Not really, but saying that has something to do with the fact that a Republican was elected rather than a Democrat is fooling yourself.