Ron Paul's chances becoming president.

[seneca_roman]

His stand on drugs won't help:
"
The government should not crack down on those using hard illicit drugs, Rep. Ron Paul said Friday, delivering a full-throated libertarian clarion call in his first official speech as a Republican candidate for the presidency.

“We have conceded way too much to the government about what we put in our bodies,” Paul, R-Texas, told a packed house in Exeter, N.H., hours after declaring his candidacy on “Good Morning America.”

“We control our intellectual and spiritual life, why should we concede to the government what we do with our own bodies?”

“Why,” asked Paul, “should we be so intimidated by someone using hard drugs? Better to take a position that you have freedom of choice.”

Paul also said the federal government also should not regulate medical drugs and the FDA too often limits patients’ access to new medicines."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...dential-campaign-with-libertarian-ideals.html

 

[Debaser82]

Quote from seneca_roman:

His stand on drugs won't help:
"

Yes, he is pretty radical on a number of issues but that is also what makes him interesting in my view.

Basically you can chose between 20 copies of each other who will argue whether taxes should be raised or cut 1%, 2% or 3% or Ron Paul who stands for something completely different.

And despite his radical views by many standards he has managed to become rather main stream doing it.

I live in Western Europe and Paul's candidaty made all the papers site headlines this week.

So he is known globaly now which is quite remarkable given indeed some of his thoughts are not that conventional.

Most of his press obviously comes from criticising the FED still.

 

[olias]

Quote from Lucrum:

Which translates to: "I have no idea". Thanks Ricter as usual you've been a big help.

Actually Ricter was right. Do a little Googling... you'll find about 1 moron who supports the gold standard for every 40 respected economists that say the gold standard will not work. Beyond that, if you were a thinking man you would realize that the whole basis of the gold standard doesn't even hold water. Might as well switch to the Tulip Bulb Standard. (ok, I exaggerate but not by much)

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Lucrum:

Which translates to: "I have no idea". Thanks Ricter as usual you've been a big help.

I cut and pasted your question into google and instantly found the answer. That's what I meant.

Tired today?

 

[olias]

"We can now add not ordering the raid on bin Laden's compound to the list of other Ron Paul positions that make him unelectable. By our count that includes:

-eliminating the Department of Education (and most federal agencies for that matter)
-immediately withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan (that won't fly in a GOP primary)
-withdrawing from NATO and the UN
-opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964
-eliminating the Federal Reserve System (maybe not an unelectable position but a tough sell).

But the fact that Paul consistently says what he believes and acts on it, has its own appeal for his supporters. So buckle up Republicans, we're expecting plenty more moments like this as he takes off on the campaign trail"
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/ron-paul-says-wouldnt-ordered-bin-laden-raid/37635/

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from olias:

Actually Ricter was right. Do a little Googling... you'll find about 1 moron who supports the gold standard for every 40 respected economists that say the gold standard will not work. Beyond that, if you were a thinking man you would realize that the whole basis of the gold standard doesn't even hold water. Might as well switch to the Tulip Bulb Standard. (ok, I exaggerate but not by much)

OK, but my question was why? If you cannot or will not answer maybe someone else will.

 

[olias]

Quote from Ricter:

I cut and pasted your question into google and instantly found the answer. That's what I meant.

Tired today?

exactly. It amazes me in this day and age that such inferior ideas as the Gold Standard still float around. All anyone has to do is a basic google search and read a few sources and the picture becomes pretty damn clear.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Lucrum:

OK, but my question was why? If you cannot or will not answer maybe someone else will.

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&biw=114...2l2l0l0l0l0l202l248l1.0.1&fp=5a87185da9a042ba

 

[Hello]

Quote from olias:

Actually Ricter was right. Do a little Googling... you'll find about 1 moron who supports the gold standard for every 40 respected economists that say the gold standard will not work. Beyond that, if you were a thinking man you would realize that the whole basis of the gold standard doesn't even hold water. Might as well switch to the Tulip Bulb Standard. (ok, I exaggerate but not by much)

Lucrum was right, The only economists who do not support the gold standard, are the ones who benefit from the perpetual printing of dollars. We have lived off the gold standard in the past there is no reason why we cant do so in the future, show me a solid reason why we couldnt move back to the gold standard. Americas best days were based on the gold standard.....

 

[Larson]

Quote from olias:

Actually Ricter was right. Do a little Googling... you'll find about 1 moron who supports the gold standard for every 40 respected economists that say the gold standard will not work. Beyond that, if you were a thinking man you would realize that the whole basis of the gold standard doesn't even hold water. Might as well switch to the Tulip Bulb Standard. (ok, I exaggerate but not by much)

all that crap I learned in University regarding monetary and macro-theory is being rewritten today, due to the buttheads
running US gov't for the last decade and a half. Jim Sinclair calls it a revtalized gold reserve certificate. You are reading material from all the failed economists models that helped get us in this mess. wake up.