Jon Stewart sticks up for Ron Paul.

[fskimospy]

Ron Paul holds the values and principles of a true conservative. Attacking him is attacking conservatism.

If Ron Paul's positions are true representatives of conservatism, this does not speak well for conservatism.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

If Ron Paul's positions are true representatives of conservatism, this does not speak well for conservatism.

bool cory sto!

 

[fskimospy]

bool cory sto!

You know that's not how to use that phrase, right?

 

[matt0611]

Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the GOP field.

The media does not want him to be elected. One of the main reasons he is "unelectable" is because the media will not treat him fairly, its a self-perpetuating system. If the media says he's not viable then he's not.

Notice how many of the other candidates are copying many of his views?
The difference is that Ron Paul actually believes what he says and doesn't just say things to get elected.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the GOP field.

The media does not want him to be elected. One of the main reasons he is "unelectable" is because the media will not treat him fairly, its a self-perpetuating system. If the media says he's not viable then he's not.

Don't let them sell this lie.

 

[jman19]

If Stewart is defending Paul that tells me that Republicans ignoring him is absolutely the right thing.

You sound like a good little lap dog.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

You know that's not how to use that phrase, right?

Just wanted to respond with something as meaningless as your statement.

 

[Jaskalas]

If Ron Paul's positions are true representatives of conservatism, this does not speak well for conservatism.

The GOP does not speak well for conservatism. They stand behind big gov candidates for electability. Just look at McCain and Romney. Same ilk. Not a conservative among them, your throne in DC would be left intact, if not made larger, after they get done. Bush was proof of that.

It is our backlash against betrayal that has some of us seeking a rare true conservative who would not grow your power, but dismantle it. The Tea Party is some pale ghost of our intentions, but I fear they are corrupt and hallow, rotten from the GOP. Paul stands alone as the true and uncorrupted face of someone who would stop you.

He speaks well for those of us who are not corrupt.

 

[matt0611]

The GOP does not speak well for conservatism. They stand behind big gov candidates for electability. Just look at McCain and Romney. Same ilk. Not a conservative among them, your throne in DC would be left intact, if not made larger, after they get done. Bush was proof of that.

It is our backlash against betrayal that has some of us seeking a rare true conservative who would not grow your power, but dismantle it. The Tea Party is some pale ghost of our intentions, but I fear they are corrupt and hallow, rotten from the GOP. Paul stands alone as the true and uncorrupted face of someone who would stop you.

He speaks well for those of us who are not corrupt.

Well said. You're right about the tea party too, started out as good, then corrupted by GOP.

GWB == Romney == Perry == NOT conservative.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Ron Paul holds the values and principles of a true conservative. Attacking him is attacking conservatism.

Attacking him says nothing about conservatism. Some of his ideas are fine but he personally is not a viable candidate. Besides, I thought he won in 2008?

 

[fskimospy]

The GOP does not speak well for conservatism. They stand behind big gov candidates for electability. Just look at McCain and Romney. Same ilk. Not a conservative among them, your throne in DC would be left intact, if not made larger, after they get done. Bush was proof of that.

It is our backlash against betrayal that has some of us seeking a rare true conservative who would not grow your power, but dismantle it. The Tea Party is some pale ghost of our intentions, but I fear they are corrupt and hallow, rotten from the GOP. Paul stands alone as the true and uncorrupted face of someone who would stop you.

He speaks well for those of us who are not corrupt.

The GOP doesn't speak well for much of anything, but that doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul's policies are awful. He combines social libertarianism (conveniently wishing for the state to intrude into the bodies of women) with breathtaking economic ignorance and quackery.

Someone pointed out that responsible people would prevent him from cratering the world economy if he were elected (and let there be no mistake, a return to hard currency at this time would do exactly that), but the inability to carry out the more awful aspects of his platform isn't really a resounding endorsement.

 

[Genx87]

The GOP doesn't speak well for much of anything, but that doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul's policies are awful. He combines social libertarianism (conveniently wishing for the state to intrude into the bodies of women) with breathtaking economic ignorance and quackery.

Someone pointed out that responsible people would prevent him from cratering the world economy if he were elected (and let there be no mistake, a return to hard currency at this time would do exactly that), but the inability to carry out the more awful aspects of his platform isn't really a resounding endorsement.

The world economy is already cratering. How long do you think Europe can fund Greece, Spain, and Portugal? China is a house of cards built around employing people to build fake cities. Add Italy and Ireland to the mix and let the plunge continue.

 

[fskimospy]

The world economy is already cratering. How long do you think Europe can fund Greece, Spain, and Portugal? China is a house of cards built around employing people to build fake cities. Add Italy and Ireland to the mix and let the plunge continue.

Why would the economy performing poorly be a reason to make it perform even worse? Europe could fund Greece, Spain, and Portugal indefinitely if it chose to. Funny thing about your example though, a great deal of Greece, Spain, and Portugal's current troubles come from being on the Euro and the de facto hard money constraints that come with it.

 

[matt0611]

The GOP doesn't speak well for much of anything, but that doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul's policies are awful. He combines social libertarianism (conveniently wishing for the state to intrude into the bodies of women) with breathtaking economic ignorance and quackery.

Someone pointed out that responsible people would prevent him from cratering the world economy if he were elected (and let there be no mistake, a return to hard currency at this time would do exactly that), but the inability to carry out the more awful aspects of his platform isn't really a resounding endorsement.

Libertarians are divided on the abortion issue. Its not about "intruding into women's bodies" , its about if a women's unborn baby should have the right to life. You're way oversimplifying it.

Ron Paul doesn't even want to return back to a gold standard (though that would be better than what we have now). he simply wants to follow the constitution and allow gold and silver to be circulated as money freely without government interference. If you want to use unbacked paper notes, that would be your choice.

The state can not be trusted with fiat money, that much has been shown certain.
The state being able to print as much money as it wants is not compatible with small goverment or conservatism. Its no surprise that you would support it. It allows the government to do what you want it to do.

 

[Genx87]

Why would the economy performing poorly be a reason to make it perform even worse? Europe could fund Greece, Spain, and Portugal indefinitely if it chose to. Funny thing about your example though, a great deal of Greece, Spain, and Portugal's current troubles come from being on the Euro and the de facto hard money constraints that come with it.

That wasnt my point. My point is people like to rail on a different system of money when the current system is also failing miserably.

And I disagree Europe could fund those countries debt indefinately. If they could, they would without asking questions. The real question being asked is when should they let it all fold and save themselves from the sinking ship.

 

[fskimospy]

Libertarians are divided on the abortion issue. Its not about "intruding into women's bodies" , its about if a women's unborn baby should have the right to life. You're way oversimplifying it.

Ron Paul doesn't even want to return back to a gold standard (though that would be better than what we have now). he simply wants to follow the constitution and allow gold and silver to be circulated as money freely without government interference.

Ron Paul supports a commodity backed currency, which is the gold standard in all but name. In our current economic situation that would be a catastrophe. There's a reason why every nation on earth abandoned this idea.

 

[fskimospy]

That wasnt my point. My point is people like to rail on a different system of money when the current system is also failing miserably.

And I disagree Europe could fund those countries debt indefinately. If they could, they would without asking questions. The real question being asked is when should they let it all fold and save themselves from the sinking ship.

What are you basing your idea of the current money system being a failure on? Furthermore, on what basis are you arguing that a hard currency standard would be superior? Do you believe it would lead to a better standard of living for people? Better GDP growth? More social stability? What?

Europe could unquestionably support the debt of those countries indefinitely. Their total debt burden is a small fraction of European GDP. Whether or not they consider it worth their while to do so, or to what extent they WISH to fund it is something else entirely. Their capability to fund it is a no brainer though. I imagine there is a good chance those countries will abandon the Euro in the near future. If they choose to do so it will be precisely due to the hard money constraints being placed on them by it, constraints that are currently ruining their economies.

 

[matt0611]

Ron Paul supports a commodity backed currency, which is the gold standard in all but name. In our current economic situation that would be a catastrophe. There's a reason why every nation on earth abandoned this idea.

He would support it over what we have now. But he doesn't advocate for a return to a gold standard as you would consider it. It would not be under government control.

Every government wants the ability to print money to feed itself. If you support big government its only logical to be on a paper standard.

The world was on dollar standard and thereby a gold standard until we reneged on our promise to pay gold in 1971 after devaluing twice. This is because we were printing too many notes for the gold we had to pay for big government.

 

[airdata]

Great video.

It really shows what a joke our whole process is. Ron Paul love him or hate him is clearly the most grounded candidate.

Michelle Bachman is going around saying she wants to do things like ban porn, and has a quite possibly homosexual husband who tries to convert gays to be straight.

And you people call Ron Paul crazy? Jesus.

 

[matt0611]

What are you basing your idea of the current money system being a failure on? Furthermore, on what basis are you arguing that a hard currency standard would be superior? Do you believe it would lead to a better standard of living for people? Better GDP growth? More social stability? What?

Europe could unquestionably support the debt of those countries indefinitely. Their total debt burden is a small fraction of European GDP. Whether or not they consider it worth their while to do so, or to what extent they WISH to fund it is something else entirely. Their capability to fund it is a no brainer though. I imagine there is a good chance those countries will abandon the Euro in the near future. If they choose to do so it will be precisely due to the hard money constraints being placed on them by it, constraints that are currently ruining their economies.

We had hard currency during the industrial revolution, reconstruction era (one of the greatest periods of growth) the roaring 20s, during the late 40, 50s and early 60s. You think those eras were bad for growth?

Your assertion that hard currency is not compatible with growth or a good standard of living is just not evident.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Ron Paul supports a commodity backed currency, which is the gold standard in all but name. In our current economic situation that would be a catastrophe. There's a reason why every nation on earth abandoned this idea.

You don't support competition?

 

[momeNt]

Ron Paul supports a commodity backed currency, which is the gold standard in all but name. In our current economic situation that would be a catastrophe. There's a reason why every nation on earth abandoned this idea.

The reason why every nation has abandoned the idea is that it forces nations to be honest in their monetary policy.

The entire reason the USA went completely off the pseudo-gold standard in 1971 was because other nations were beginning to demand payment in gold when all we wanted to do was give them rapidly inflating dollars. So since none of the other countries wanted to inflate on top of our dollars anymore with the option of being able to redeem in gold, we decided to renege on the bretton-woods system and go pure fiat.

Pure fiat allows the USA to use dollars (reserve currency) to export inflation (the modern monetary theorists like to call it "liqudity") and to steal wealth by allowing debts to be repaid in increasingly debased currency. By trying to control inflation and set interests rates using fiat currency you also aim to distort the time preferences that people have when they consider whether to spend or save (inflation hurts savers). This sort of distortion along with other government fiscal policies has created enormous bubbles all driven by mal-investment that are just now popping.

The ONLY reason that all nations abandoned commodity backed currencies and have all adopted central banking is because it gives them the power they have all craved to have over markets. It is not that the gold standard did not work, it is that government wanted to have the power of controlling a central bank and the power of a fiat currency.

 

[fskimospy]

We had hard currency during the industrial revolution, reconstruction era (one of the greatest periods of growth) the roaring 20s, during the late 40, 50s and early 60s. You think those eras were bad for growth?

Your assertion that hard currency is not compatible with growth or a good standard of living is just not evident.

Hard currencies are good for growth in the short term, but they are huge drivers of policy instability in the member states, which is what leads countries to abandon it. The hallmarks of the gold standard were huge boom and bust cycles, bank panics, social instability, etc.

There have been a number of efforts to implement the gold standard due to the obvious advantages of fixed trade ratios and the economic activity it encourages. The disadvantages were just too awful a price to pay for it however, so everyone stopped using it.

 

[fskimospy]

The reason why every nation has abandoned the idea is that it forces nations to be honest in their monetary policy.

The entire reason the USA went completely off the pseudo-gold standard in 1971 was because other nations were beginning to demand payment in gold when all we wanted to do was give them rapidly inflating dollars. So since none of the other countries wanted to inflate on top of our dollars anymore with the option of being able to redeem in gold, we decided to renege on the bretton-woods system and go pure fiat.

Pure fiat allows the USA to use dollars (reserve currency) to export inflation (the modern monetary theorists like to call it "liqudity") and to steal wealth by allowing debts to be repaid in increasingly debased currency. By trying to control inflation and set interests rates using fiat currency you also aim to distort the time preferences that people have when they consider whether to spend or save (inflation hurts savers). This sort of distortion along with other government fiscal policies has created enormous bubbles all driven by mal-investment that are just now popping.

The ONLY reason that all nations abandoned commodity backed currencies and have all adopted central banking is because it gives them the power they have all craved to have over markets. It is not that the gold standard did not work, it is that government wanted to have the power of controlling a central bank and the power of a fiat currency.

Urgh, so much bad information here.

- Low, but steady inflation is a good thing for economies, and fiat currency is far better for accomplishing this.
- The gold standard shackles responses to economic emergencies, making effective action more difficult.
- The gold standard's effect on government policy led to widespread volatility in their behavior due to the constraints on fiscal and monetary policy, leading to enormous social and economic problems.

I love how the universal abandonment of an idea is the result of some worldwide conspiracy as opposed to the recognition that the idea was bad.

 

[Deeko]

I don't even like Ron Paul, and I couldn't help but want to punch that CNN guy at the end in the face.