Ron Paul approved newsletters personally, and BONUS!

[Plushie]

What does "truly free choice in money" even mean? If it's what it sounds like it's just not possible. If it is not what it sounds like knowing just what it is would be useful so as to even be able to discuss the matter.

Meaning, essentially, that there is no legal tender crowding out other possible monies..

It is indeed difficult to implement. Money interacts with the law in so many ways (when I sue you, what do you pay me in?) that I can't, at the moment, see a really great way of implementing it.

It just seems to me that money is causing conflict today like religion did in the past, so the it seems like the proper solution is starring us in the face: separation of money and state.

I imagine a common standard or basket of standards of value would arise relatively quickly. Perhaps Federal Reserve Notes (if the Secret Service keeps up on fighting their counterfeiting) would even play that role, at least initially. Who knows? It's not like anybody accurately predicted the specifics of the internet when ARPAnet research was first shared with the public. Gold has served this role in the past, but I feel like that was more because of the primitive conditions prevailing at the time. Modern information systems are much more capable, so something like gold might not be necessary.

[bobalot]

In other Ron Paul news:

Anonymous Hacks White Supremacist Site, Finds Direct Links to Ron Paul

The “anti-fascist” wing of the “Anonymous” hacker group has broken into a website run by the white supremacist American Third Position (A3P), and released a document dump consisting of private forum messages, emails, organizational notes, and other personal information.

The documents show numerous connections between Republican candidate Ron Paul and these racist Neanderthals; they’re heavily involved in campaigning for Paul, and according to the messages, have held regular meetings with Ron Paul himself: Ron Paul, the American Third Position Party and Stormfront.

Also revealed: Ron Paul has held meetings with A3P and Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party — the notorious UK fascist group with neo-Nazi roots.

Members of the nationalist American Third Position Party (A3P), whose website was defaced by Anonymous, organised Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s meetings and campaigns, according to emails hacked by the collective.

Chairman of the British National Party (BNP) Nick Griffin also took part in meetings with Paul and other representatives of A3P.

“According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors,” read a statement from Anonymous.

Source

If this were a sole story about a candidate, I would be a bit sceptical of an "anonymous hack". However, this seems to be an ongoing issue with Ron Paul.

[Plushie]

The only country on a gold standard for the whole 19th century was Great Britain.

I've just remembered that, from a purely technical standpoint, Great Britain wasn't, either. She left the gold standard during the Napoleonic Wars.

[Simon_Jester]

What I want to know is why Ron Paul wants us on the gold standard and rejects bimetallism. Dammit, I want my artificially fixed gold:silver price ratio imposed on the global economy!

[zombie William Jennings Bryan to Ron Paul]

I would be presumptuous, indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this were but a measuring of ability; but this is not a contest among persons. The humblest citizen in all the land when clad in the armor of a righteous cause is stronger than all the whole hosts of error that they can bring. I come to speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty—the cause of humanity. When this debate is concluded, a motion will be made to lay upon the table the resolution offered in commendation of the administration and also the resolution in condemnation of the administration. I shall object to bringing this question down to a level of persons. The individual is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles are eternal; and this has been a contest of principle.

Never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed such a contest as that through which we have passed. Never before in the history of American politics has a great issue been fought out as this issue has been by the voters themselves.

On the 4th of March, 1895, a few Democrats, most of them members of Congress, issued an address to the Democrats of the nation asserting that the money question was the paramount issue of the hour; asserting also the right of a majority of the Democratic Party to control the position of the party on this paramount issue; concluding with the request that all believers in free coinage of silver in the Democratic Party should organize and take charge of and control the policy of the Democratic Party. Three months later, at Memphis, an organization was perfected, and the silver Democrats went forth openly and boldly and courageously proclaiming their belief and declaring that if successful they would crystallize in a platform the declaration which they had made; and then began the conflict with a zeal approaching the zeal which inspired the crusaders who followed Peter the Hermit. Our silver Democrats went forth from victory unto victory, until they are assembled now, not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up the judgment rendered by the plain people of this country.

But in this contest, brother has been arrayed against brother, and father against son. The warmest ties of love and acquaintance and association have been disregarded. Old leaders have been cast aside when they refused to give expression to the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause of freedom. Thus has the contest been waged, and we have assembled here under as binding and solemn instructions as were ever fastened upon the representatives of a people.

We do not come as individuals. Why, as individuals we might have been glad to compliment the gentleman from New York [Senator Hill], but we knew that the people for whom we speak would never be willing to put him in a position where he could thwart the will of the Democratic Party. I say it was not a question of persons; it was a question of principle; and it is not with gladness, my friends, that we find ourselves brought into conflict with those who are now arrayed on the other side. The gentleman who just preceded me [Governor Russell] spoke of the old state of Massachusetts. Let me assure him that not one person in all this convention entertains the least hostility to the people of the state of Massachusetts.

But we stand here representing people who are the equals before the law of the largest cities in the state of Massachusetts. When you come before us and tell us that we shall disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your action. We say to you that you have made too limited in its application the definition of a businessman. The man who is employed for wages is as much a businessman as his employer. The attorney in a country town is as much a businessman as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis. The merchant at the crossroads store is as much a businessman as the merchant of New York. The farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, begins in the spring and toils all summer, and by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of this country creates wealth, is as much a businessman as the man who goes upon the Board of Trade and bets upon the price of grain. The miners who go 1,000 feet into the earth or climb 2,000 feet upon the cliffs and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured in the channels of trade are as much businessmen as the few financial magnates who in a backroom corner the money of the world.

We come to speak for this broader class of businessmen. Ah. my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic Coast; but those hardy pioneers who braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose—those pioneers away out there, rearing their children near to nature’s heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds—out there where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their children and churches where they praise their Creator, and the cemeteries where sleep the ashes of their dead—are as deserving of the consideration of this party as any people in this country.

It is for these that we speak. We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest. We are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned. We have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded. We have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came.

We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them!

The gentleman from Wisconsin has said he fears a Robespierre. My friend, in this land of the free you need fear no tyrant who will spring up from among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of aggregated wealth.

They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which rest Democracy are as everlasting as the hills; but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen and we are attempting to meet those conditions. They tell us that the income tax ought not to be brought in here; that is not a new idea. They criticize us for our criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States. My friends, we have made no criticism. We have simply called attention to what you know. If you want criticisms, read the dissenting opinions of the Court. That will give you criticisms.

They say we passed an unconstitutional law. I deny it. The income tax was not unconstitutional when it was passed. It was not unconstitutional when it went before the Supreme Court for the first time. It did not become unconstitutional until one judge changed his mind; and we cannot be expected to know when a judge will change his mind.

The income tax is a just law. It simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the backs of the people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man who is not willing to pay his share of the burden of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.

He says that we are opposing the national bank currency. It is true. If you will read what Thomas Benton said, you will find that he said that in searching history he could find but one parallel to Andrew Jackson. That was Cicero, who destroyed the conspiracies of Cataline and saved Rome. He did for Rome what Jackson did when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America.

We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe it is a part of sovereignty and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than can the power to make penal statutes or levy laws for taxation.

Mr. Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have a different opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business.

They complain about the plank which declares against the life tenure in office. They have tried to strain it to mean that which it does not mean. What we oppose in that plank is the life tenure that is being built up in Washington which establishes an office-holding class and excludes from participation in the benefits the humbler members of our society. . . .

Let me call attention to two or three great things. The gentleman from New York says that he will propose an amendment providing that this change in our law shall not affect contracts which, according to the present laws, are made payable in gold. But if he means to say that we cannot change our monetary system without protecting those who have loaned money before the change was made, I want to ask him where, in law or in morals, he can find authority for not protecting the debtors when the act of 1873 was passed when he now insists that we must protect the creditor. He says he also wants to amend this platform so as to provide that if we fail to maintain the parity within a year that we will then suspend the coinage of silver. We reply that when we advocate a thing which we believe will be successful we are not compelled to raise a doubt as to our own sincerity by trying to show what we will do if we are wrong.

I ask him, if he will apply his logic to us, why he does not apply it to himself. He says that he wants this country to try to secure an international agreement. Why doesn’t he tell us what he is going to do if they fail to secure an international agreement. There is more reason for him to do that than for us to expect to fail to maintain the parity. They have tried for thirty years—thirty years—to secure an international agreement, and those are waiting for it most patiently who don’t want it at all.

Now, my friends, let me come to the great paramount issue. If they ask us here why it is we say more on the money question than we say upon the tariff question, I reply that if protection has slain its thousands the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us why we did not embody all these things in our platform which we believe, we reply to them that when we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and that until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished.

Why is it that within three months such a change has come over the sentiments of the country? Three months ago, when it was confidently asserted that those who believed in the gold standard would frame our platforms and nominate our candidates, even the advocates of the gold standard did not think that we could elect a President; but they had good reasons for the suspicion, because there is scarcely a state here today asking for the gold standard that is not within the absolute control of the Republican Party.

But note the change. Mr. McKinley was nominated at St. Louis upon a platform that declared for the maintenance of the gold standard until it should be changed into bimetallism by an international agreement. Mr. McKinley was the most popular man among the Republicans ; and everybody three months ago in the Republican Party prophesied his election. How is it today? Why, that man who used to boast that he looked like Napoleon, that man shudders today when he thinks that he was nominated on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. Not only that, but as he listens he can hear with ever increasing distinctness the sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely shores of St. Helena.

Why this change? Ah, my friends. is not the change evident to anyone who will look at the matter? It is because no private character, however pure, no personal popularity, however great, can protect from the avenging wrath of an indignant people the man who will either declare that he is in favor of fastening the gold standard upon this people, or who is willing to surrender the right of self-government and place legislative control in the hands of foreign potentates and powers. . . .

We go forth confident that we shall win. Why? Because upon the paramount issue in this campaign there is not a spot of ground upon which the enemy will dare to challenge battle. Why, if they tell us that the gold standard is a good thing, we point to their platform and tell them that their platform pledges the party to get rid of a gold standard and substitute bimetallism. If the gold standard is a good thing, why try to get rid of it? If the gold standard, and I might call your attention to the fact that some of the very people who are in this convention today and who tell you that we ought to declare in favor of international bimetallism and thereby declare that the gold standard is wrong and that the principles of bimetallism are better—these very people four months ago were open and avowed advocates of the gold standard and telling us that we could not legislate two metals together even with all the world.

I want to suggest this truth, that if the gold standard is a good thing we ought to declare in favor of its retention and not in favor of abandoning it; and if the gold standard is a bad thing, why should we wait until some other nations are willing to help us to let it go?

Here is the line of battle. We care not upon which issue they force the fight. We are prepared to meet them on either issue or on both. If they tell us that the gold standard is the standard of civilization, we reply to them that this, the most enlightened of all nations of the earth, has never declared for a gold standard, and both the parties this year are declaring against it. If the gold standard is the standard of civilization, why, my friends, should we not have it? So if they come to meet us on that, we can present the history of our nation. More than that, we can tell them this, that they will search the pages of history in vain to find a single instance in which the common people of any land ever declared themselves in favor of a gold standard. They can find where the holders of fixed investments have.

Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between the idle holders of idle capital and the struggling masses who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country; and my friends, it is simply a question that we shall decide upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight. Upon the side of the idle holders of idle capital, or upon the side of the struggling masses? That is the question that the party must answer first; and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic Party, as described by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic Party.

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union.

I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have.

If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!

[/zombie Bryan]

[Napoleon the Clown]

So it would basically be going back to the barter system.

That'd work wonders for lines at the store, I tell you what. /sarcasm


As to the recent hack... Color me unsurprised. Regardless of if the guy agrees with them or not, he's pandering. People like that shouldn't be given the time of day, IMO, much less have a discussion with someone who has aspirations for becoming POTUS. I do admit I am eagerly awaiting the inevitable justifications from his followers.

[General Brock]

Are you saying Ron Paul's racist newsletter is ok because he's trying to raise awareness of racism?

I'm saying the newsletters don't matter because Ron Paul isn't racist and his policies would deny institutional racism.

The letters aren't 'OK', just not particularly relevant compared to what's at stake. I doubt that they raised awareness of racism as they appear directed at people who were already racists.

Race-baiting for any reason isn't cool, but if someone who isn't racist, to make racist comments to take advantage of racists with no intention of harming the disparaged group, is guilty of little more than rudeness and negligence. Harm was caused, sure, and someone one-step removed from those comments and letting them be made by a friend representing him is likewise rude and a bit stupid for letting it go on. However the outrage is just not in keeping with the perspective.

Sticks and stones break bones, but racist words don't hurt near as much unless made into law. Hurt feelings are not something to base a voting call on - discrete policies and avowed principles are. If Ron Paul could end some expressions of racism actually hurting people right now, depriving them of real rights and property, especially of the far dirtier institutional sort, that would clearly have priority over any off-colour words which carry no weight.

Really, at this point, the 'political correctness' of some liberals just goes to demonstrate why, across race and creed, liberals tend to be considered more than a little suspect, if not useless.

The main concern of any person of race with regards to Ron Paul would be, what is he willing to do for me now. Liberal PC considerations have for the most part been from white folks talking about an old white guy; the stereotypically hated old white anglo-saxon male, stereotypically hated by hip younger white liberals.

Many people of race may feel differently about Ron Paul because they get the sticks and stones and bad words far more often than any white liberal and want real and lasting justice. The kind of justice ONLY Ron Paul is publicly offering as a major part of his campaign platform.

(Edit: Woah, that site is a little more angry than a first glance would suggest...)

[General Brock]

You mean the real world of hard currency commodity money which lasted for centuries if not millenia in various incarnations and tended to limit the money supply to actual goods and services produced? Reliance on fiat currency has only been around for a hundred years, and historically tried, failed, and rejected numerous times with surviving governments reverting to a commodity standard like gold. Fiat currency's main claim to fame is enabling borrowing beyond the here and now into the productive potential of future generations, including those of nations buying into U.S. debt, to a degree that now appears unrealistic.

Dude, the Gold Standard IS fiat currency, it's worth exactly as much as the market determines gold to be worth.

Am I the only one who notices this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I was asking the same thing..

Oh, so a fiat currency isn't normally defined as one not backed by direct conversion to a physical commodity like a set weight of gold, the value not necessarily market-dependent, sometimes referred to as a gold standard when gold is the commodity. My mistake then. Let the presses roll.

[General Brock]

Of course, if you think that a gold standard is so great, you could basically institute a little gold standard of your own by immediately converting all of your income into gold coin/bullion/certificates/etc as you earn it. Unless you live paycheque-to-paycheque and spend all your income quickly after you earn it there's no reason why you need to possess many dollars for very long anyways. So given that you already have the ability to store all of your own wealth as gold, I don't see how you would additionally benefit from the government going back to a gold standard.

If only I had stashed more gold when it was $300/ounce. Presently even Steve Forbes predicts a return to the 'gold standard' for American currency within 5 years stability. With or without Ron Paul.

[Flagg]

Are you saying Ron Paul's racist newsletter is ok because he's trying to raise awareness of racism?

I'm saying the newsletters don't matter because Ron Paul isn't racist and his policies would deny institutional racism.

Prove this. All of it.

[Simon_Jester]

If only I had stashed more gold when it was $300/ounce. Presently even Steve Forbes predicts a return to the 'gold standard' for American currency within 5 years stability. With or without Ron Paul.

Forbes is full of shit if he said it, which I doubt because that website looks to be so riddled with lunatics that they're quite capable of misrepresenting someone's opinion.

And me, I don't wish I'd bought gold when it was cheap. I wish I'd bought Apple stock- which is about the ultimate in fiat currency, but has a better rate of return than gold.

Anyway, Brock- why is Paul a goldbug and not a bimetallist? What's wrong with the silver standard? Is he just in it to artificially inflate the value of his own gold savings to the ridiculous value gold would get demand shot up after basing global currencies on it?

[MKSheppard]

Anyway, Brock- why is Paul a goldbug and not a bimetallist? What's wrong with the silver standard?

I do think that there is a small point in the wild claims against fiat money -- it just becomes electrons to be pushed around and starts to lose any kind of real tangible value that keeps monetary policy rooted in stability.

With that said, multi-materialism is a better choice than goldbuggery, e.g. use precious metals and certain raw materials as a partial baseline (say, back 25% of the currency) and let the rest float.

You get the flexibility in monetary policy that FIAT MONEY gives you, while the basket of commodities keeps monetary policy a bit sane.

Then again, my idea might be completely wet.

[Simon_Jester]

If I had to choose I'd take multimaterialism over the gold standard, and seriously consider adjusting the commodity basket in question on a regular-ish basis.

I don't know what I think about the problems of fiat money causing instability- I really don't.

I just want- nay, demand- to know why Ron Paul favors the gold standard and not the silver standard.

[Spoonist]

Anyway, Brock- why is Paul a goldbug and not a bimetallist? What's wrong with the silver standard?

He used to sell collectors coins and gold bars to the survivalists. Then it all goes back to his book, which also still sells him some royalties etc.
http://mises.org/books/caseforgold.pdf

So its just plain old greed.

[J]

If I had to choose I'd take multimaterialism over the gold standard, and seriously consider adjusting the commodity basket in question on a regular-ish basis.

I don't know what I think about the problems of fiat money causing instability- I really don't.

I just want- nay, demand- to know why Ron Paul favors the gold standard and not the silver standard.

When it comes to monetary policy, Ron Paul is a fruitloop. That's it. And gold is sexier than silver.

---

With regards to fiat money systems always leading to inflation, well, that's more from blatant disregard and abuse of monetary policy than anything else. There is nothing inherent to fiat money systems to make them inflationary, the reason it happens is because it makes the banks richer by making loans & so forth seemingly more affordable & easier to pay off. Seemingly being the key word.

I believe the best solution is to follow the Federal Reserve's charter to the letter, specifically, Section 2A, which reads as follows:

Section 2A. Monetary Policy Objectives

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

Follow that to the letter and we don't have a problem. The money & credit supply grows at the same rate as the economy thus prices remain stable and everything is good.

[General Brock]

Anyway, Brock- why is Paul a goldbug and not a bimetallist? What's wrong with the silver standard? Is he just in it to artificially inflate the value of his own gold savings to the ridiculous value gold would get demand shot up after basing global currencies on it?

I would assume simplicity in selling the plank, as getting into bimetallism is a little more complicated and more likely to have that glazed-eyes effect on the voter. America hasn't been bimetallic since the Coinage Act of 1873.

An actual return to the gold standard might bring up the question, but otherwise, that's a far distant bridge to be considering when winning the primaries are a long shot and Paul's objective is to focus discussion on fiscal responsibility.

[General Brock]

Are you saying Ron Paul's racist newsletter is ok because he's trying to raise awareness of racism?

I'm saying the newsletters don't matter because Ron Paul isn't racist and his policies would deny institutional racism.

Prove this. All of it.

I thought I already did so.

Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist, and anyone who credibly knows Ron Paul agrees with this. None of his official campaign statements or actions or votes as a Congressman suggest Ron Paul is anything other than an anti-racist libertarian constitutionalist.

Ron Paul addresses a bastion of institutional racism directly with his promise to end the war on drugs. The early war on drugs was focused on marijuana and Hispanic Americans. The modern war on drugs disproportionally penalizes African Americans. Ron Paul has openly stated he would end the war and pardon those convicted of non-violent rug crimes, and treat drug addiction as an illness, not a criminal offense.

Furthermore, Ron Paul's supports States rights in their legalization of marijuana for medicinal use. There is nothing inherent to State's Rights that automatically says State rights will translate into racism. The origin of States' rights was Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, that asserted States had the right to ignore any laws they regarded as unconstitutional, in response to violations of individual rights inherent to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1878. States may have used that as an excuse to support segregation, but they could just as easily have used states rights to defend minorities had the political will been there, as it was in the Northern states. In the end, discriminatory states lost on civil liberties arguments anyway. Its unclear to me how a theoretical and unlikely rolling back of the clock by state on civil rights is somehow more real than the very real Federal trampling of constitutional rights.

The erosion of civil liberties is just discounted out of hand. Despite the fact its a lot more serious than racism alone. The first American citizen killed by extrajudical presidential fiat was not a white christian, but a brown muslim. That O-Blam!-Aaaa is a black man does not sanctify the appearance of bigotry in the least, as he was acting on the advice of a secret panel of advisers; they can't be identified, let alone questioned, let alone voted out of office.

As hard as I've looked, the hate Ron Paul bandwagon is predominantly a white elitist/wannabe elitist phenomenon. There are no significant non-white commentators outside Al Sharpton prepared to condemn Ron Paul over the newsletters, and even Sharpton relies on a white commentator to deliver the knife.

This automatically raises questions as to the validity of the anti-Pauls use of this argument. The conclusion that the racism charge is not aimed at convincing minorities, or helping them in any way, but rather, to give a politically correct excuse for a 'swing' vote of white small-c conservatives and soft liberals to not vote Ron Paul, is inevitable.

Its just so much easier to identify examples of populist support for Ron Paul across racial and economic boundaries, and contrast it with corporate media hostility to Ron Paul and grassroots anti-Pauls. The only way to counter this is with white guilt, making whites feel embarrassed abut supporting Ron Paul and returning to the status quo, and breaking any nascent solidarity as individuals on common ground based on individual worth across income level and race.

Its would appear that a trump 'race' card is being played by the anti-Pauls. It is the only one they can play against him to any effect, not because Ron Paul is racist, but because many people are racist and prefer the polite institutional racism of the status quo, and has become the tipping factor atop any other intellectually conceited and defeatist doubts about Ron Paul.

Its also working; somehow the values behind antiwar, antiracism, pro-constitutionalism, pro-civil liberties, and fiscal responsibility are less important than hating Ron Paul. Somehow it is expected that no-one will notice those values are being thrown out under the pretext of hating Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a latter day Hypatius. Some eunuchs have come out with bags if fiat gold to remind the Blues, the emperor favours them (for now), and the Ron Paul is a Green, and this Revolution is supposed to be as over as the Nika revolts.

One wonders, how long supporters of the "1%" has known about the Ron Paul newsletters and how it is that the issues and values Ron Paul promotes are now tied to go down with him. So many Americans won't do whatever it takes to see those values triumph, while those who oppose the core of American values, will do whatever to takes to see them off into the dustpan of history.

That's just sad to see and more disturbing to watch in action than anything I've ever encountered exploring the fringes of the 'net, and I've obviously tapped into some pretty wild flights of fantasy and departures from reason.

A superficial play on racism cynically trumps the guts of real racism - and a whole lot of other real social ills - addressed by Ron Paul's five main points of antiwar, antiracism, pro-constitutionalism, pro-civil liberties, and fiscal responsibility.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist,

Oh, well, that settles it! Politicians never lie, right guys?

Seriously? This is your proof? Ron Paul saying "I'm not racist, super serial guys!" Do you understand the concept of 'proof'?

and anyone who credibly knows Ron Paul agrees with this.

How do you define 'credibly know'? Agreeing with him unquestionably?

Just saying he isn't racist is NOT the same as providing evidence that he isn't racist. Seriously, this thread, and several others on this forum, are LITTERED with evidence of Ron Paul's racism. Even a casual, not-politically-motivated fellow such as myself has heard him say things that indicate at best a less than enlightened view of race. So, please, provide PROOF, not say-so.

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

Also, why is it that these people are so obsessed with the gold standard? Gold's value is arbitrary anyway. There are some practical reasons why it had some historical value, but there is nothing inherent about gold itself that makes it incredibly valuable. Every time I see an argument in favor of it, all I think of is this. It just seems like such a childish attempt at politics, I just cannot understand how people take it seriously. I have just never seen an argument that was any more convincing than just cackling "GOOOOOOOOOLD!"

[eyl]

and anyone who credibly knows Ron Paul agrees with this.

How do you define 'credibly know'? Agreeing with him unquestionably?

Just saying he isn't racist is NOT the same as providing evidence that he isn't racist. Seriously, this thread, and several others on this forum, are LITTERED with evidence of Ron Paul's racism. Even a casual, not-politically-motivated fellow such as myself has heard him say things that indicate at best a less than enlightened view of race. So, please, provide PROOF, not say-so.

Even if he isn't racist, I'm not sure that's to his credit in this case. There are three possibilities:

1 - He's racist
2 - He isn't racist, but didn't pay attention to/didn't care what was being published in his own name.
3 - He isn't racist, but has no problem pandering (or defrauding, if you want to see it that way) those who do.

Each of these possibilities suggest he's unfit to be President either for reason of character, for fitness, or both.

[Simon_Jester]

Anyway, Brock- why is Paul a goldbug and not a bimetallist? What's wrong with the silver standard? Is he just in it to artificially inflate the value of his own gold savings to the ridiculous value gold would get demand shot up after basing global currencies on it?

I would assume simplicity in selling the plank, as getting into bimetallism is a little more complicated and more likely to have that glazed-eyes effect on the voter. America hasn't been bimetallic since the Coinage Act of 1873.

An actual return to the gold standard might bring up the question, but otherwise, that's a far distant bridge to be considering when winning the primaries are a long shot and Paul's objective is to focus discussion on fiscal responsibility.

So why doesn't he say "silver standard" instead of gold? It's one more syllable, sure... honestly, it sounds like the most Occam-compliant explanation is J's. He's a fruitloop, and gold is sexy, so he thinks gold is good for the economy whether it really is or not. Did he never actually sit down and think about the issue? Because you really ought to do that, and if he'd done that, I'm surprised that then, after careful rational effort, he decided that gold was the best material for a standard.

It sounds more like he just thinks it's a good idea because it was done in the 19th century. But if I want a crazy goldbug president, I'll vote LaRouche.

Ron Paul addresses a bastion of institutional racism directly with his promise to end the war on drugs...

Furthermore, Ron Paul's supports States rights in their legalization of marijuana for medicinal use. There is nothing inherent to State's Rights that automatically says State rights will translate into racism. The origin of States' rights was Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, that asserted States had the right to ignore any laws they regarded as unconstitutional, in response to violations of individual rights inherent to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1878. States may have used that as an excuse to support segregation, but they could just as easily have used states rights to defend minorities had the political will been there, as it was in the Northern states. In the end, discriminatory states lost on civil liberties arguments anyway. Its unclear to me how a theoretical and unlikely rolling back of the clock by state on civil rights is somehow more real than the very real Federal trampling of constitutional rights.

Hah.

Oh come on, have you ever been in the Deep South? The best you could hope for is that prosecution of racial discrimination disappears and becomes totally unenforced- there are plenty of people down there who do care about ending bigotry, but the system is amazingly tolerant of cruelty and bigotry.

As hard as I've looked, the hate Ron Paul bandwagon is predominantly a white elitist/wannabe elitist phenomenon.

How hard have you looked? For that matter, how many minority spokesmen even care about Ron Paul, seeing as how he's just one Republican candidate out of a field of several, and Republicans have a nasty habit of ignoring or screwing over minorities to cater to rich white interests and poor white prejudices?

The only reason anything you see as a "hate Ron Paul bandwagon" even exists is that you keep tromping around trying to play the guy up, and everyone else looks at your arguments and goes "you're an idiot, shut up and go away." To quote Churchill, "a fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject," and you sure meet the definition. You talk about Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul, and talk about him at great length, repeating the same basic arguments and insisting he's the "only chance" for this, that, and the other thing.

The race argument is far from the only reason to oppose Ron Paul. I opposed Ron Paul before I heard about the newsletters. The newsletters just add a new layer of paint to a very heavy coat of it that was already in place.

Its also working; somehow the values behind antiwar, antiracism, pro-constitutionalism, pro-civil liberties, and fiscal responsibility are less important than hating Ron Paul. Somehow it is expected that no-one will notice those values are being thrown out under the pretext of hating Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a latter day Hypatius. Some eunuchs have come out with bags if fiat gold to remind the Blues, the emperor favours them (for now), and the Ron Paul is a Green, and this Revolution is supposed to be as over as the Nika revolts.

One wonders, how long supporters of the "1%" has known about the Ron Paul newsletters and how it is that the issues and values Ron Paul promotes are now tied to go down with him. So many Americans won't do whatever it takes to see those values triumph, while those who oppose the core of American values, will do whatever to takes to see them off into the dustpan of history.

That's just sad to see and more disturbing to watch in action than anything I've ever encountered exploring the fringes of the 'net, and I've obviously tapped into some pretty wild flights of fantasy and departures from reason.

No fooling- you even write like a conspiracy theorist.

[Flagg]

I'm saying the newsletters don't matter because Ron Paul isn't racist and his policies would deny institutional racism.

Prove this. All of it.

I thought I already did so.

*snip bullshittery*

Yeah, you just repeatedly said "He's not racist" without backing it up at all.

[Metatwaddle]

How hard have you looked? For that matter, how many minority spokesmen even care about Ron Paul, seeing as how he's just one Republican candidate out of a field of several, and Republicans have a nasty habit of ignoring or screwing over minorities to cater to rich white interests and poor white prejudices?

Don't take this to be like "the ~representative for the black community~ has SPOKEN" or anything, but Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic has a pretty good piece on why he thinks black Americans are, and will remain, unconvinced by Ron Paul. He says one problem is that Ron Paul is fucking racist:

Indeed, one of the quicker ways to delegitimize the critique of the War on Drugs, in the eyes of black people, would be making Ron Paul the prominent face of the movement... I would submit that, in that fight, invoking the dude who attacks Lincoln with the Confederate flag as a backdrop, who inveighs against the Civil Rights act, and once ran a white supremacist racket may be something less than a trump card.

And another problem is that not all, or even most black Americans are in favor of ending the war on drugs:

But the fact is that black people are far from united in their feelings about the criminal justice system in general, and drug crimes in particular... Last year, when activists in California attempted to legalize marijuana through Proposition 19, only 47 percent of the black community supported the measure. I find that unsurprising. Unfortunately, black people have disproportionate contact with crime and criminals. That contact often doesn't breed sympathy, but severity.

Food for thought, I hope.

[Simon_Jester]

How hard have you looked? For that matter, how many minority spokesmen even care about Ron Paul, seeing as how he's just one Republican candidate out of a field of several, and Republicans have a nasty habit of ignoring or screwing over minorities to cater to rich white interests and poor white prejudices?

Don't take this to be like "the ~representative for the black community~ has SPOKEN" or anything, but Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic has a pretty good piece on why he thinks black Americans are, and will remain, unconvinced by Ron Paul. He says one problem is that Ron Paul is fucking racist:

Yeah pretty much.

But it's more than just that.

To Ron Paul fanboys like Brock, Ron Paul is the hero who has the power to save America. He's important, he's the only honest man in politics, his election or failure to be elected will be the defining moment of our generation, blah blah blah.

To the rest of us, Ron Paul is one disagreeable idiot out of a pool of several other idiots seeking the Republican presidential nomination. The fact that the NAACP isn't doing big press releases Paul doesn't mean Ron Paul somehow has the tacit approval of the NAACP. Nor does it mean the NAACP has somehow 'cleared' Ron Paul of charges of racism. It probably just means that the NAACP doesn't give a shit about Ron Paul one way or the other, and has better things to do than worry endlessly about Ron Paul, hard as this may be for Ron Paul fans to imagine.

[bobalot]

In other news, it's been discovered that Ron Paul took double reimbursements on air travel.

But...but...but...

[bobalot]

In more Ron Paul news, Ron Paul Calls For The Elimination Of Public Lands

This is not the first time Paul has called for public lands to be turned over to states or private entities. In October he told the Western Republican Leadership Conference that public lands “should be returned to the states and then for the best parts sold off to private owners.

[Darth Wong]

As hard as I've looked, the hate Ron Paul bandwagon is predominantly a white elitist/wannabe elitist phenomenon.

Wow. I look forward to pictures of Ron Paul rallies in your world. The sea of dark-skinned faces must be quite a sight, what with all the white elitists who hate him and the minorities who love him. Strangely, I can't find any pictures like this on the Internet, but I'm sure your mind is full of them.

Its just so much easier to identify examples of populist support for Ron Paul across racial and economic boundaries

That is a fascinating claim. Please, by all means, show us all these examples of minority support for Ron Paul.

... antiwar, antiracism, pro-constitutionalism, pro-civil liberties, and fiscal responsibility ...

Empty slogans. Nothing more.

He has openly stated that he would prefer to eliminate laws that prohibit racist policies at the state level. He has openly stated that he would allow state-level governments to infringe upon individual freedoms. His "fiscal responsibility" line is a joke; there is nothing "responsible" about treating public assets like a yard sale. And everyone on both sides of every major political dispute likes to wrap himself in the constitution. It grows tiresome; the constitution is just a legal document. In a nation of wannabe-lawyers, the ultimate legal document also represents the ultimate moral authority, but that's part of the derangement of America.