Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[alexamenos]

Ron Paul's November 5th money bomb --

$1.5 million raised....

....today.....

....so far.

A little Ron Paul homage this November 5th to Guy Fawkes, "the only person ever to enter Parliament with good intentions."

[alexamenos]

update ^^^ $2.2 million raised as of 2:15 pm cst.

so far as I am aware, the largest single day haul in history was $2.6 million (John Kerry) .... and that was for a very mainstream candidate who was on the verge of clinching his party's nomination.

edit: correction -- Kerry raised $5.6 million at the Dem Party Convention, and that's the largest single day haul.....the Mormon John Kerry, as it happens, holds the record for biggest single day haul by a GOP candidate (3.1 million). I'm not sure how much of that $3.1 million was contributed by Mitt Romney, Inc....

[Arne]

2.9 million.

[Arne]

3.0 million.

[Arne]

Over $4.000.000 in just one day...

[alexamenos]

quite amazing, and importantly the number of new donors really surprises me -- something like 20,000 new donors. You can almost put those twenty thousand new donors in the bank as at least another million heading into New Hampshire.

I really think this sort of comment is telling:

Ron Paulmania

$2.2 million in one day...

This is a phenomenon I do not understand....

-Atrios

or this one (from several weeks back, actually, but apropos)....

Why ... [Andy McCarthy]

is there so much cheering for Ron Paul?

I think a lot of mainstream establishment types who pride themselves on knowing all things about US politics are just genuinely befuddled on the Ron Paul thing, and they genuinely don't know how to cover it. Understandably, I suppose.

It's like they try to put Ron Paul through the mainstream litmus tests --

Does he think we should bomb Iran today or should we engage in some faux diplomacy and then bomb Iran???

(Ron Paul does not compute)

Does he think the top income tax rate should be 32% or 38%????

(Ron Paul does not compute)

Does he completely agree that we should ignore our monetary system at a time when our dollar is swirling down the drain????

(Ron Paul does not compute)

Ron Paul does not compute, therefore he must be some lunatic fringe type.....

.....but....when you hear him talk he sounds like a prudent, rational, (dare I say?) wise man is who is trained in science, steeped in economics, a veteran of the armed services (unlike, say, bush, clinton, romney, cheney ad nauseum), and a geniunely pretty affable fellow (he's not, for example, one given to dean-screams).

so they don't know what to make of him, and it's unlikely they'll get a real grip on him or the phenomenon.

------------------------

edit: and then again, sometimes it's not so much that the mainstreamers don't understand as they are just deliberately obtuse....in an article on Paul's haul, MSNBC sez:

"Paul advocates limited government and low taxes like other Republicans"....

Wrong -- Paul advocates limited government and low taxes unlike other Republicans. This is why he appeals to alot of folks.

[Arne]

Oh sorry for posting, I forgot: NeoCons don't care as long as the industrial millitary complex, religion and the war on terror aren't involved...

[dude1394]

Atrios is a main-streamer?

Good for Ron Paul... It's nice to see a libertarian who isn't completely wacko do well. I wish him well, couldn't vote for him, but wish him well.

With respect to the monetary system, he's going to have to do a lot,lot more explaining before that one comes off as anything other than wacko. To be honest I haven't looked at it enough to have much of an opinion, but in general it's so out of the mainstream and so complicated that he needs to find a much more simple explanation.

Most folks only see that the lower dollar generates more exports for the US and more jobs. If inflation were going nutso then he'd have at least some case. But a lower dollar without inflation is not much of a problem for most folks.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

With respect to the monetary system, he's going to have to do a lot,lot more explaining before that one comes off as anything other than wacko. To be honest I haven't looked at it enough to have much of an opinion, but in general it's so out of the mainstream and so complicated that he needs to find a much more simple explanation.

We are a monetarily ignorant country, by and large. But the idea of a mainstream conversation about our monetary system is not at all out of the question. There have been several periods, and presidential elections, in our country's history when monetary considerations have been front and center.

And it really isn't that difficult to explain -- oil prices, for instance. It's not so much that the value of oil has gone up in recent years as the value of the dollar has gone down....hence, that $90 / barrel is a direct result of our monetary policy, and an indirect tax relating therefrom.

cheers

edit...apropos of the statement....

Originally Posted by dude1394

in general it's so out of the mainstream and so complicated that he needs to find a much more simple explanation.

text from a very recent Paul speech to some high school students:

“We have this bizarre idea … that when Washington comes up short, whether it’s to fight a war or run the welfare state, you know what we do? We print the money,” he told about 100 students at Nashua South High School. “Now how much sense would it have to take to figure out that if you could just print money at will, maybe the value of money is going to go down.”

Such a statement may be out of the mainstream, but it's hardly complicated.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

And it really isn't that difficult to explain -- oil prices, for instance. It's not so much that the value of oil has gone up in recent years as the value of the dollar has gone down....hence, that $90 / barrel is a direct result of our monetary policy, and an indirect tax relating therefrom.

cheers

yeah, all those european countries using the euro are not paying more for oil.

what? their cost of oil has increased too? they are paying close to historical highs (in euros mind you) for the stuff?

well, so much for the oil:dollar equation made above.

oil is a traded commodity, the price reflects supply and demand.

text from a very recent Paul speech to some high school students:
Such a statement may be out of the mainstream, but it's hardly complicated.

yet with a relatively static usa money supply the dollar has decreased 11% in value relative to the euro.....

the problem in the declining value of the dollar is low interest rates and balance of payments imo, not the money supply per se.

[Dirkadirkastan]

I once had an economics professor who always seemed to have a lot of saliva in his mouth when he talked. So whenever I see the phrase "supply and demand", I think of someone talking with a bunch of spit in their mouth.

[alexamenos]

md, i keep trying to tell you to leave the economics alone, so you don't hurt yourself...it's for your own good, really.....

but if you insist......

....the dollar denominated price of oil has increased more in the last several years than the euro denominated price of oil....basically, yes the euro is also losing value, but not quite as quickly as the dollar.

certainly the *real* price of oil has increased in recent years -- my best guess is that but for the dimunition in the value of the dollar the price of oil would be quite high, historically, say something in the 40's....

....but as it stands the price of oil is hovering near $90. the difference in the what would be historically high $40's and the as it is $90's is about the dollar, not the barrel.

as food for thought......the price of oil in dollars has increased by 300-400% since the start of this decade (century, millenium).....but if we priced oil in ounces of gold rather than dollars we would say that the price of oil has increased by only 10 - 15%, an amount that would hardly be high enough to cause any of us to take note.

and....

....the supply of money has, as a point of fact, increased quite a bit in the last couple of years according to federal reserve statistics -- this fact is not less true nor less important because you choose to ignore 80% of the money supply.

cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

md, i keep trying to tell you to leave the economics alone, so you don't hurt yourself...it's for your own good, really.....

but if you insist......

but it's you who's called me to action.

....the dollar denominated price of oil has increased more in the last several years than the euro denominated price of oil....basically, yes the euro is also losing value, but not quite as quickly as the dollar.

the difference between the euro cost of oil and the dollar cost is the exchange rate the day the oil sold. about 1% per month decline over the last year.

but that's not what you said, which was "It's not so much that the value of oil has gone up in recent years as the value of the dollar has gone down".

boy, those who are using for instance the euro would wish that were true so as they pay almost twice as much for their oil this year than last...but it's not.

there is no correlation. the oil price and the dollar:euro exchange rate do not follow the same pattern of behavior.

instead of their cost of oil inflating about 45% over the last couple of years, the countires on the euro have had their oil cost increase about 42%.

you know, there are some currencies the dollar has increased in value with. the british pound for instance. the yen.

they're paying about 46% more for their oil...

and the decrease in value with the yuan is a good thing. the rate needs to get even tighter.

certainly the *real* price of oil has increased in recent years -- my best guess is that but for the dimunition in the value of the dollar the price of oil would be quite high, historically, say something in the 40's....

....but as it stands the price of oil is hovering near $90. the difference in the what would be historically high $40's and the as it is $90's is about the dollar, not the barrel.

as food for thought......the price of oil in dollars has increased by 300-400% since the start of this decade (century, millenium).....but if we priced oil in ounces of gold rather than dollars we would say that the price of oil has increased by only 10 - 15%, an amount that would hardly be high enough to cause any of us to take note.

well, hogwash on the dollar/oil assertion.

as for the comparison to gold, the snapshot of today's values narrows the spread. both have been bid up to historical highs.

the price of gold has been on a steady upswing since 9/11. my suggestion is the price of gold reflects a "war premium" more than any other influence.

and....

....the supply of money has, as a point of fact, increased quite a bit in the last couple of years according to federal reserve statistics -- this fact is not less true nor less important because you choose to ignore 80% of the money supply.

cheers

it's increased over the last 3 quarters much more rapidly than the years preceeding. this is a reaction to the credit issues, and we'll probably see additional pumping over the next 2 quarters.

and that's true of whichever "m" you choose to use.

so tell me, what would ron paul have done in response to the current lending issues reverberating through the world's financial markets? he wouldn't have the fed to help (he's dissolved it right?), so how would he react? he apparently would merely let the market go through the convulsions until it calmed.

I wonder how much the markets would need to add in for a "ron paul sits on his hands" premium to their returns?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there is no correlation. the oil price and the dollar:euro exchange rate do not follow the same pattern of behavior.

there is too a correlation -- it's 0.753 for daily prices/exchange rates this decade. The t-stat is off the chart significant.

there is a reason two seemingly very unrelated things would be highly correlated -- it's because both things are dependent upon the value of the dollar.

as the dollar gains value, the price of oil goes down and the dollar to euro exchange rate goes down. as the dollar loses value, the price of oil goes up and the dollar to euro x-rate goes up.....

I won't try to decipher your math, but for reference sake bear in mind that that the price of oil in dollars is currently 3.4 times the pre 9-11 price, while the price in euro's is 2.1 times the price.....

so...you correctly note that the dollar has not lost as much ground to the euro as it has to the barrel. you neglect, however, to note that the run-up in the US Dollar price has been more dramatic than the run-up in the Euro price. More importantly, you neglect to consider that the euro is likewise losing purchasing power, just not as rapidly as the dollar.

cheers

[mcsluggo]

uhm, isn't that because the global markets for oil are specifically denominated in dollars?
(serious question, i THINK its true, but I'm not sure)

So in essense oil is a domestic good, like the price of a Whopper... in the long run that price will gravitate towards some sort of fundamentals (say if th eprice of Argentinian beef rises), but in the short run the price is a bit sticky. WIth oil it is the same thing, if the Saudi's and the Chavistas and the Putins all set their price (of oil) in dollars, the excahnge rate (euro/$) is left to keep the real price stable in the two economies... but there is alsorts of OTHER shit driving THAT price (like our recently changed level of debt, leading to greater expected future US interest rates, which pushes down the current value of the dollar....plus a ZILLION other factors)

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

uhm, isn't that because the global markets for oil are specifically denominated in dollars?

indeedy, oil is priced in dollars in virtually every market on earth.....coincidentally enough (or perhaps not so coincidentally), the three members of the oil axis of evil, iran, iraq and venezuela, have all made overtures (threats?) about moving to some other currency in recent years (well, not all that recent, at least in iraq).

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

So in essense oil is a domestic good, like the price of a Whopper... in the long run that price will gravitate towards some sort of fundamentals (say if th eprice of Argentinian beef rises), but in the short run the price is a bit sticky. WIth oil it is the same thing, if the Saudi's and the Chavistas and the Putins all set their price (of oil) in dollars, the excahnge rate (euro/$) is left to keep the real price stable in the two economies... but there is alsorts of OTHER shit driving THAT price (like our recently changed level of debt, leading to greater expected future US interest rates, which pushes down the current value of the dollar....plus a ZILLION other factors)

ummm.....hmmmm.....

I think earlier when I said something to the effect of

it's not so much that the value of oil has gone up as the value of the dollar has gone down

I was basically saying that it isn't that the real price of oil has gone through the roof, but instead it's the nominal price that has gone through the roof.....(and that's what is important to me because I'm paid in nominal dollars)

certainly there are a zillion or so factors at play, but because this is an nba fan forum and i'm kinda of lazy in addition to being handicapped in terms of intelligence I prefer to keep things rather simple.....

to wit.....

when you trade one thing for another thing the value of both things matter....if i'm trading tobacco leaves for argentinian beef and the value of tobacco leaves falls through the floor, it's quite plausible to suggest that the tobacco leaf denominated price of argentinian beef will rise, and it's rather futile to search only the fundamentals of the argentinian beef industry for an explanation of why the (tobacco leaf) price of beef has risen.

in a nutshell -- I think the current high price of oil is a direct result (and an indirect tax of) recent (5-10 years) of our fiscal and monetary policies....that is, there's no free lunch, you can't have your guns and butter, spend and spend is no substitute for tax and spend, etc., etc....

then again, maybe there is some simpler explanation of why prices are so damned high...

cheers

[mcsluggo]

it is much more the fiscal policy than the Monetary policy-- except to the extent that the monetary policy did not explicitly contract to subdue the housing/mortgage bubble, BUT a "policy nuetral" stance (like gold strives to be) certainly wouldn't have popped that zit either.

I suppose you could argue that if gold was the underlying asset that OTHER nations held in reserves to back THEIR currencies (rather than the dollar) ... then currency markets would've smacked down the $US-value because of the unsustainable fiscal and current account situations YEARS ago. INstead, the rise of the Euro as a viable alternative to the dollar appears to finally be leading to some market discipline on US policies. US has been fortunate to be able to cash-in on all of the free arbitrage opportunities inherant from being the currency of record for so long ... but in the long run the "competition" will benefit the rest of the world very much. Lets just hope the dollar isn't COMPLETELY supplanted by the Euro (as happened to the pound-sterling, when it was replaced as the global currency by the dollar during the UK's moronic monetary policies in the post ww1 years)

[alexamenos]

funny --> link

San Francisco Straw Poll Canceled After Paul Supporters Stream In
Story Created: Dec 5, 2007

Story Updated: Dec 5, 2007

The San Francisco Republican Party straw poll was canceled Tuesday, after a majority of attendants showed up to vote for Texas Congressman Ron Paul. ...

well, if that's not reason to cancel a straw poll then what is?

[alexamenos]

fun stuff

gloves off....

this ostensibly off the cuff remark by Dr. Paul looks to me like one of those caculated and well planned off the cuff remarks. It'll be interesting to see whether the Huckster takes the bait.

[Mavdog]

wow, two items that are disturbing.

one is the subliminal use of a cross in what has been described as a non-political christmas message (ad?) by huckabee. is the huckabee staff that unobservant that they missed the visual, or is huckabee that deceptive that the ad purposely incorporated the visual while huckabee acts naive?

second is the interjection of the term fascist by ron paul to characterize the huckabee video. by the use of the phrase ron paul shows that he either fails to understand what the term truly means (as no candidate approaches this political philosophy) or ron paul has fallen victim to the temptation of character assasination by use of the media.

all in all niot a very positive turn of events for either huckabee or ron paul imho.

[alexamenos]

i would have been most disappointed, md, had you said anything else.

cheers

[alexamenos]

Just in case there was any doubt, Ron Paul is now officially THE choice for president among hopelessly and dreadfully nerdy Americans....

--> link1 , link2

[Mavdog]

ok alex, what will be an acceptable finish for ron paul in the iowa caucus tonight?

he seems to out of the running for first, and maybe second place is a bit too much to expect.

3rd? 4th?

if he finishes behind romney, huckabee, and thompson....

if he doesn't pull anymore than mccain (who didn't do anything in iowa), is that ok?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

ok alex, what will be an acceptable finish for ron paul in the iowa caucus tonight?

he seems to out of the running for first, and maybe second place is a bit too much to expect.

3rd? 4th?

if he finishes behind romney, huckabee, and thompson....

if he doesn't pull anymore than McCain (who didn't do anything in iowa), is that ok?

it's a good question, and I've thought about it some, and I really don't have a solid answer.

On one level, 5th or 6th could take some thunder from the Paul-volunteers in New Hampshire, so let's say 4th is the minimum that would justify the anti-Fox News position that Paul needs to be treated as something other than an also-ran.....

But in the grander scheme of things, even a second place finish (which is extraordinarily unlikely) would only cause me to raise my assessment of Paul's chances from 1:100,000 to about 1:85:000, so I don't think that the number of votes Paul pulls in Iowa tonight really matters -- what matters is more in the movement....

I think in the Paul phenomena you have the makings of a regenerated intellectual movement, an intellectual tradition which already exists but only on the margins....while much ado is made of 9/11 truthers and other malcontents, a significant contingent of *his following* is actually made up of reasonably well adjusted folks with a better than average grounding in history and economics....

So the only practically possible outcome of the Paul movement would be the mainstreaming of what is now a marginal intellectual movement, and I'm not sure that any outcome (1 through 6) in Iowa will have any effect on that.

[Mavdog]

"regenerated intellectual movement"?

gee, nothing elitist there.....

ron paul has made an effort in iowa, so last place would be a disappointment to the campaign. if he is beaten by guiliani, who (I believe) didn't set foot in the state, and mccain, not good for a candidate who is viewed as having very dedicated, committed people behind it.

I agree that four is the minimum to keep some positive momentum.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"regenerated intellectual movement"?

gee, nothing elitist there......

elitist? perhaps....i suppose any intellectual movement, in embryo, is by definition "elitist".

and *regenerated*, certainly -- the movement I refer to is nothing more than classical liberalism, v. 2000+......

.....take Bastiat, for instance.........it may seem ridiculous to suggest that an early 19th century economic journalist might have anything of interest to us today:

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education."

I beg to differ -- the world Bastiat saw and described is not so terribly different from the world we inhabit today:

why one would advocate reducing the support for educating our youth is beyond me. talk about a shortsighted position...let's NOT educate our youth! that's a GREAT plan for our future competitiveness and prosperity, let me tell ya!

I'm just saying that if anything comes of the Paul phenomena, it will be a regeneration of ideas which have long been floating in the air out there, that are largely ignored in the mainstream political discourse today, and yet at various times in our history have been front and center.

[Mavdog]

well done alex.

although I'd certainly disagree on the "socialism" moniker. egalitarian would be much more applicable.

certainly you are aware that prior to the establishment of the dept of education and the commensurate rise in public educational opporunities/facilities, the usa had about a 60% literacy rate.

that's what school for those who can afford it produces.

but these philosophies you speak of have always been present. it's just that most of us have realized their falacies.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

but these philosophies you speak of have always been present. it's just that most of us have realized their falacies.

would those fallacies include the fallacy of confusing correlation with causation????

(and I think Bastiat's definition of "Socialist" would probably be different from how we use the term today -- I believe *Socialist* to him meant something more like "Big Government Liberal" or perhaps even "Compassionate Conservative").

anyhoo.....5th last night, very mildly disappointing but I don't think events in the course of history will be dramatically different over the next 5 years because Paul garnered two lousy delegates instead of 3 lousy delegates like McCain and Thompon.

(as one cautiously optimistic fellow put it, two delegates down, only one thousand, one hundred and eight nine to go.)

[alexamenos]

On one level, 5th or 6th could take some thunder from the Paul-volunteers in New Hampshire, so let's say 4th is the minimum that would justify the anti-Fox News position that Paul needs to be treated as something other than an also-ran.....

My main concern about Paul failing to finish ahead of either McCain or Thompson in Iowa was that it would further cement his status as an also ran who is justifiably ignored, but upon further review I hear folks on Fox News, of all places, looking at his 10% finish and saying "this is not insignificant support, shouldn't we give him a place at the table for the New Hampshire debate?"

also...

ron paul has made an effort in iowa, so last place would be a disappointment to the campaign. if he is beaten by guiliani, who (I believe) didn't set foot in the state, and McCain, not good for a candidate who is viewed as having very dedicated, committed people behind it.

this was very much my perception as well, but alas perception and reality are often different things....turns out that of Paul actually attended fewer campaign events in Iowa this year than McCain or Giuliani and fewer than half as many events as Thompson.....

when you consider that Paul had (and still has) a huge gap to overcome in name recognition and that the average Iowan's notion of a free market is a market where subsidies are freely given to corn farmers, Paul's 10% haul was not bad at all...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

My main concern about Paul failing to finish ahead of either McCain or Thompson in Iowa was that it would further cement his status as an also ran who is justifiably ignored, but upon further review I hear folks on Fox News, of all places, looking at his 10% finish and saying "this is not insignificant support, shouldn't we give him a place at the table for the New Hampshire debate?"

by all means ron paul should be at any republican debate. first he is not pulling insignifigant numbers, and second he brings a very different message to the table, a message that should be heard (even tho I see it as fringe positions).

this was very much my perception as well, but alas perception and reality are often different things....turns out that of Paul actually attended fewer campaign events in Iowa this year than McCain or Giuliani and fewer than half as many events as Thompson.....

when you consider that Paul had (and still has) a huge gap to overcome in name recognition and that the average Iowan's notion of a free market is a market where subsidies are freely given to corn farmers, Paul's 10% haul was not bad at all...

I do not know how many times ron paul, mccain or guliani went to iowa, I do recall seeing paul at events in des moines and elsewhere, and of course there was the debate fiasco.

it is pretty ridiculous to claim that today, after all the press ron paul has received, after all the time he has been seen on the tube, that ron paul has a "gap...in name recognition".

btw in spite of many perceptions that iowa is a farm economy only about 10% of the workforce is farm employed.

[Arne]

NH GOP Pulls Out of Fox GOP Forum

ARLINGTON, Va.--(Business Wire)--The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign praises the New Hampshire
Republican Party's decision to pull its sponsorship of the Fox News
forum in protest of Fox's decision to exclude Congressman Ron Paul.

"The New Hampshire Republican Party did the right thing by pulling
its sponsorship for Fox's candidate forum," said Ron Paul 2008
spokesman Jesse Benton. "'Fox News' decision to exclude Congressman
Paul is unfair, but it won't stop Dr. Paul's message of freedom, peace
and prosperity from resonating with the people of New Hampshire."

Today, New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen
released the following statement regarding Sunday's Republican forum
on FOX:

"The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national
purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level
playing field. Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded
underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national
figures. Consistent with that tradition, we believe all recognized
major candidates should have an equal opportunity to participate in
pre-primary debates and forums.

"This principle applies to tonight's debates on ABC as well as
Sunday's planned forum on FOX. The New Hampshire Republican Party
believes Congressmen Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter should be included in
the FOX forum on Sunday evening. Our mutual efforts to resolve this
difference have failed.

"While we understand that FOX News continues to move forward it is
with regret, the New Hampshire Republican Party hereby withdraws as a
partner in this forum."
http://www.reuters.com/article/press...008+BW20080105

[Arne]

Rasmussen Poll:

Ron Paul ranking third in New Hampshire with 14%.

[Arne]

Ron Paul to Appear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno


Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul will be appearing on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” on Monday, one day before the New Hampshire primaries.



Coming off an impressive showing in Iowa, the Texas Congressman will be a Leno guest as the comedian continues to work without the aid of writers. On his first night back on the air Leno had Republican candidate Mike Huckabee on the show.



Ron Paul will tape the show and then head back to New Hampshire where he will hold a Primary Party at 8:30 p.m. Paul was left off the invitation list for the FOX News Republican roundtable forum scheduled for Sunday evening, a decision that will likely be a topic of discussion when he speaks with Leno.



The Tonight Show with Jay Leno featuring Ron Paul as a guest will air on Monday night at 11:35 p.m. ET.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

Rasmussen Poll:

Ron Paul ranking third in New Hampshire with 14%.

not today. he's down to 11%. after his showing at the debate last night another 3 to 4 pt drop wouldn't be very surprising.

[Arne]

Well his showing was pretty good in my opinion. Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee and McCain behaved like four year old's... Dr. Paul was a man among boys.

[Mavdog]

uh huh, like when ron paul said that we can solve healthcare problems if we "stop printing money"?

or that the "runaway welfare state" and "excessive [government] spending" are to blame for illegal immigration?

or that the islamic jihadist only attack america?

or when he incorrectly stated that iraqi oil production today is "less than half" the level of pre-invasion? (it is back to 98% of the pre-invasion amount)

[Arne]

Well you say he said that they only attack America. What he actually said was: Why don't they attack Switzerland or Canada.

You seem to believe what Fred Thompson said when he repeated what he thought Ron Paul had said: "So if we stop printing more money, we can be out of the war in Iraq, end the welfare state and bring oil back to $27 a barrel?"

He misunderstood the whole argument because he can't even put it in the logical order.

Get out of Iraq and bring the troops home, then stop printing money (which you can then do, because all of this money won't go overseas), thereby stopping inflation and taking care of the people here at home (the one's who want to earn real money and keep it and the ones who are dependent on fixed income's like the elderly and all people who are dependent on the welfare state.

[mcsluggo]

Isn't New Hampshire, the "don't tread on me" state, and one of the true libertarian strongholds of the country?

Why isn't Dr. Paul kicking ass there? shouldn't this be the obvious springboard for his whole campaign?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Isn't New Hampshire, the "don't tread on me" state, and one of the true libertarian strongholds of the country?

Why isn't Dr. Paul kicking ass there? shouldn't this be the obvious springboard for his whole campaign?

a little bit of the ole expectation game at play here -- that Dr. Paul is able to get any press right now is, in itself, quite a bit of ass kicking on his part.

...and any thought New Hampshire might be a springboard for the rest of his campaign presumes he has a legitimate shot at the Republican nomination in the first place...an uncertain assumption a best.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

Well you say he said that they only attack America. What he actually said was: Why don't they attack Switzerland or Canada.

You seem to believe what Fred Thompson said when he repeated what he thought Ron Paul had said: "So if we stop printing more money, we can be out of the war in Iraq, end the welfare state and bring oil back to $27 a barrel?"

He misunderstood the whole argument because he can't even put it in the logical order.

Get out of Iraq and bring the troops home, then stop printing money (which you can then do, because all of this money won't go overseas), thereby stopping inflation and taking care of the people here at home (the one's who want to earn real money and keep it and the ones who are dependent on fixed income's like the elderly and all people who are dependent on the welfare state.

no, that is not what ron paul said. here is the quote from the debate:

There's always a radical element in almost all religions. They have to have an incentive. We give them that incentive.

The question that you don't -- aren't willing to ask is, why is it that they attack America? I mean, they don't attack the Canadians. They don't attack the Swiss. If it were merely because they wanted to go into Europe, why do they..

perhaps ron paul forgot, or perhaps ron paul doesn't know, but the islamic jihadists have attacked in:
america
spain
britain
germany
france
indonesia
bali
morocco
and probably a couple more countries that I can't recall.

it comes down to which position are you taking: do the islamic terrorists just want to see the west out of their countries and if america were to remove itself from the muslim countries the terrorists would just go away (ron paul's perspective), or do the terrorists have as their goal the rise of fundamentalist islam throughout the world and the defeat of western civilization such as individual freedom and democratic government.

me, I see it as the later. the islamic terrorist have attacked many other western countries, have even issued statements that say that if we all convert to islam they will stop their terrorism.

ron paul is wrong to believe that if we just leave them alone they will just go away and not hate us anymore, jus like he was wrong to claim that they don't attack other countries.