Finally: Ron Paul kinda sorta comes out as a Truther
posted at 2:44 pm on July 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Via LGF, which has a transcript. America’s Greatest Patriot has been playing footsie with 9/11 cranks for years, doing interviews with paranoiacs like Alex Jones, stating his support for a new investigation into the attacks, and floating related theories of his own about a war-crazed government willing to attack its own people to further the neocon agenda. The boss, playing off Colbert’s most famous coinage, describes his attitude perfectly as “Trutheriness.” Even so, as far as I know, he’s been careful never to suggest that the real truth about 9/11 is any different from the government’s version — until now. Watch this and judge for yourself, noting the pregnant pause after he’s asked, “Why don’t you come out about the truth about 9/11?” That’s a decidedly different question from asking why he won’t call for a new investigation, implying that he personally believes the “truth” is something other than what we’ve been told. And he does nothing to correct the impression.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Wow…error abounding…!!!!
A “gold standard” merely ties the value of a currency to the value of a tangible, finite thing. It could easily be an “aluminum standard” or a “dry-wall” standard.
What virtue it has is in limiting currency manipulation by the government. Even that is not infinite. Witness the implosion of the value of gold during the years of the Spanish conquest of the Americas. Greater supply = lower price. If you had a currency on a gold standard, it could be manipulated to at least an extent by manipulating the supply of gold.
Milton Friedman suggested that the gold standard was impractical for our economy some decades ago. Instead, he suggested that the growth in our currency supply be limited to a given percentage, except in time of national emergency (as in war).
Not that that would stop THE ONE, who is an outlaw.
Ragspierre on July 18, 2009 at 6:49 PM
But that’s just it. If you want to spend money that neither you, nor the government-backed banks actually have, you shouldn’t be spending that money. America become rich and powerful with real work that generate real wealth, and any loans made were made with money that was backed with real gold. It’s only in the last 30 years, all of it after going off the gold standard, that America has become the greatest debtor nation in history and is actually trillions upon trillion indebted to foreigners.
It’s not the government’s job to lend you money. Welcome to conservatism 101.
keep the change on July 18, 2009 at 6:51 PM
It sounds as if he is saying it just to say it as an excuse why he won’t say why he won’t support it… not that he necessarily believes in it.
GW_SS-Delta on July 18, 2009 at 6:55 PM
I’m not sure you said what you intended, but, as Dr. Sowell points out in Basic Economics, America’s railroads were built with capital largely invested in America by the Brits. That was LONG before we went off the gold standard.
Ragspierre on July 18, 2009 at 6:56 PM
That has been the case for ages now. Chuck went back to his happy place on the left over a year ago.
Jim708 on July 18, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Actually, Colbert stole that from Wikipedia.
BlameAmericaLast on July 18, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Even a complete nutjob can have a good idea once in a while…
Wolftech on July 18, 2009 at 7:35 PM
IDIOCY.
9/11 happened on a tuesday, therefore, every tuesday we will have a terror attack.
divorce rates have skyrocketed since the 1940s, therefore, divorce is the fault of the creation of Israel in 1948
detroit has lost population since the 1960s. the beatles hit the airwaves in the 1960s. therefore, paul mccartney is responsible for the decline of detroit.
battleoflepanto1571 on July 18, 2009 at 7:44 PM
What truth is missing? Evil men plotted to hijack planes, and fly them into buildings symbolic of our country’s greatness.
Because they hate us.
massrighty on July 18, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Spot on. LGF sucks now a days. Remember when they threw Robert Spencer under the bus?
What he said in that video could be interpreted 1,000 different ways. Hardly conclusive enough to consider him a truther.
Must be a slow news day huh AP? Can’t focus on more important things like Cap and Tax, Health care, jihadists, and the progression towards Communism. Just another make fun of RP post by Allahpundit. Why don’t you focus on all the issues he advocates like a sound currency, no new world order, free markets, and curbing illegal immigration? I guess that would actually require research and thought.
nazo311 on July 18, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Very interesting debate on the gold standard. I would think either way, I’m a very big fan of not having ever voted to raise taxes. Even before he became popular, he was already speaking out against the federal reserve, which I think we should be more concerned about. Although I disagree with his foreign policies, I’d much rather have a true fiscal conservative in the office than any other politician. His fixing our country will more than make up for whatever he does outside our borders. He is a true Constitutionalist, and we really need more of those guys in office.
You Paul haters, did you guys really like McCain more? McCain was just another centrist that supported amnesty and too many other liberal policies.
Our wild spending and crazy deficits is our number one threat today. Once China shuts off the valve, we are in a lot of trouble.
stranglin on July 18, 2009 at 7:52 PM
A country’s real wealth is determined by the quantity and quality of goods and services it produces. That is true regardless of whether the currency is backed by a precious metal or government fiat.
Perhaps a numerical example will make this clearer. Imagine Country X produces 1000 units of a single good (say laptops) at a price of $100 with the money supply fixed. In year two, technological advance allow for production to be increased to 2000 units.
William Amos: But there isn’t enough gold for people to purchase the new laptops! The gold standard is restricting our economic growth!
Me: Not true. Doubling the supply also halves the price of laptops from $100 to $50. Individuals are now able to “consume” more laptops at the same cost or the same number at lower cost. Their purchasing power has increased without the provision of any new money.
Ponz on July 18, 2009 at 7:58 PM
WHAT – 4 hijacked planes, modified after the failure of al qaeda’s earlier plan of bombs-on-plane (didnt kill enough) with Operation Bojinka in 1995 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot
HOW – student visas allowed entry into the country; unarmed personnel on planes prevented fighting back; a history of hijackings that were generally “if you dont fight back, you will be let off at the aiport” of arabs in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. see “landed in” and “no casualties” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijackings
WHY – ticked off muslims disenchanted with A) secular arab govts that weren’t “true” muslims (a la nasser in egypt), B) western culture, influence, colonial political legacy (including western support of israel), C) zawahari/bin laden followed wahabbi thought fused with violence that said jihad=WAR. the battle of ‘islam taking over the world’ had begun in their minds.
READ A BOOK IDIOT!!!!!!!!
start with this: pulitzer prize winner, BEST book of “why and how”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looming_Tower
battleoflepanto1571 on July 18, 2009 at 7:58 PM
For those pooh-poohing the idea of a return to the gold standard:
http://mises.org/rothbard/genuine.asp
Sharke on July 18, 2009 at 8:10 PM
You obviously don’t understand the connection between government monetary policy and government debt.
keep the change on July 18, 2009 at 8:43 PM
I proved Ron Paul was a 911 Conspiracy freak 2 years ago and that’s EXACTLY what the 911 Troofers are..FREAKS
In FACT if you go to the very foundations of 911 conspiracy, it was started within weeks of 911 by DEVOUT Communists in Germany and France..people like Thiery Maisson and ALL were funded by one person….GEORGE SOROS.
You then get 911 conspiracy freaks like Dylan Avery and his goons who fabricated Loose Change…ALSO FUNDED BY SOROS. Lastly we come to Alex Jones, Mr fraud himself…why doesn’t ANYONE ever ask Alex Jones about his arrest records in Florida and Texas?
Ron Paul is a fraud…ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
nelsonknows on July 18, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Ron Paul funded by George Soros….now that is a conspiracy theory.
nazo311 on July 18, 2009 at 8:45 PM
What does that have to do with the gold standard? The gold standard was there to protect the solvency of countries who print money, not to protect those who borrow it from others.
keep the change on July 18, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Ron Paul is also going to reveal who shot JFK ‘if you’d just give him a freakin’ minute!!!!’
DarkKnight3565 on July 18, 2009 at 8:51 PM
In answer to the first point: the poster was saying that the US is a debtor nation now, I think as a result of going off the gold standard. That point is incorrect, especially as it fails to define what in the world we are talking about. The US has, happily, been a “debtor nation” for centuries, as the result of others finding our economy worth the investment of their capital.
As to your second point, I don’t know you can say the gold standard was “designed” to do much of anything. I sort of “grow’d that way”, like Topsy in Uncle Tom’s cabin.
I think perhaps “solvency” is a term that does not apply here, in a discussion of monetary policy. It is a business and accounting term that I think is foreign to the topic.
Can anyone here authoritatively say that there was a gold reserve that backed the entire money supply of the US, prior to the end of the gold standard? I frankly doubt that there was parity, but have not researched the idea.
This much I do know: a gold standard…or drywall standard…would not be the rock-solid “real money” deal some here seem to think it would be. Real stuff has a value that is volatile, and is subject to macro manipulation. Gold…or drywall…has no set intrinsic dollar value. Nor does anything else, since values are a construct of what people are willing to trade for a given thing.
In a famine, gold could be very cheap relative to wheat or corn.
Ragspierre on July 18, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Agreed. LGF, in the name of Charles Johnson, purports to be a hyper-rationalist and yet if you examine some of his arguments under the microscope you find deep intrinsic fractures in his logic. Fallacies abound. Are we to reject everything RP says or does because he might be, as many claim, a “troofer”.
CJ employs the same tactics as the left, paint with a broad brush and poison the well. I don’t know much about RP but that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Geochelone on July 18, 2009 at 9:25 PM
I would like to follow up with another point.
Kurt Godel, the famous logician, was nutty as a fruit cake. He was Einstein’s best friend and confidant at the famed Institute for Advanced Study in NJ. Godel starved himself to death because he thought people were trying to poison him.
But this in no way undermines any of his theorems or formal theoretic frameworks. They have withstood the test of time.
What this means is that each issue must be divorced from the person who said it.
Geochelone on July 18, 2009 at 9:34 PM
I second Geochelone on his point about taking any good idea as a pearl, regardless of how slimy the oyster from wince it sprigs.
As I noted earlier, I think Paul is batty, a liar, etc. That does not mean he never has anything to say that could have merit. I don’t care if it came from Andrew Sullivan, a good idea is a good idea.
One great danger of group-think is that we can…with a lot of justification…filter out ideas just because of their author. That is NOT a good plan.
Ragspierre on July 18, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Ron Paul is a true American hero.
When he is elected president in 2012 he will remove the corrupt, pro new world order neo-cons from power.
He will end the massive unconstitutional fraud that is the federal reserve system and he will put a stop to the unsconstitutional taxes that have been foisted upon us over the past 50 years by the neo-communists.
If he can win the primaries and get the nomination, he will surely beat Obama and win the presidency.
He is our best chance of winning back the white house. You neo-cons need to get over the issues you have against him and suck it up because he is the only Republican that can beat Obama.
MaximusConfessor on July 18, 2009 at 9:50 PM
+100
BobAnthony on July 18, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Speaking as a paleo-con who has been in this for over three decades (pushing four), you will forgive me if I politely decline to suck.
Paul is no conservative. He is nominally a Republican, and that only when it suits his own political agenda.
You may feel free to suck if you wish.
Ragspierre on July 18, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Doesn’t seem to be much different of a position that I’ve always figured him to be on. Say just enough to get the truthers on your side, but not enough to allow deniability.
clement on July 18, 2009 at 10:09 PM
And if loving Ron Paul is wrong, I don’t wanna be right!
RD on July 18, 2009 at 10:20 PM
RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL ‘08 ‘08 ‘08
GW_SS-Delta on July 18, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Allah, have you considered that the pregnant pause is because he’s trying to deal with a loaded question? Your comment seems to indicate that you understand this is a loaded question, but you don’t seem to take that into account in your reaction to RP’s answer.
LINK
I’d say we have just seen this in action. I think RP was trying to use tactic 2, rejecting the question, he just didn’t do a very good job of it.
I do, however, agree that RP’s association with Alex Jones is one of the biggest black marks against him.
John_R on July 18, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Seems to me he just pandered so much he didn’t realize the unintended consequences of doing so.
aikidoka on July 18, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Here in ultra blue (UGH) Washington state, Ron Paul -even tho he’s a republican- is looked on as a hero round these parts.
The lunatic fringe has it’s hero.
B Man on July 18, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Ron Paul is libertarian. Many of his ideas are good, but he is wrong on Foreign policy and dealing with Terrorists.
She was trying to link his crazy notions about 9/11 with a truly legitimate issue of the audit of Fed, to discredit it.
Fed should be limited in its scope of responsibility. Fed should only be tasked with long term low inflation (zero).
All rest of its political mandates such as full employment and other is ruining this country. Also what the hell is Fed doing getting IMF to give loans to private banks? They need to be audited. They are throwing billions of our trillions of our tax dollars to special interests. They answer to no one.
Ed Laskie on July 18, 2009 at 11:00 PM
I have to defend him. After the question he paused like he was disgusted, and then after thinking about it he seems to have simply decided to brush her off instead of confront her on it. Propping this clip up to say he supports those ideas is way wrong. If he truly believed 9-11 was an inside job do you think he would also truly believe that he had more important buisness to work on?
I think the truth with Ron Paul is that he knows the truthers are nut jobs, but he plays along with them because they are a big part of his base/ funding, and thus without them he’d slide off the map politically. That said he’s walking a tight rope because in instances like this clip here he also jeporadizes himself politically.
eski502 on July 18, 2009 at 11:03 PM
For those who are stupid- Libertarian is not Liberal. It is close to Constitutionalist. Both which are conservative points of view.
Ed Laskie on July 18, 2009 at 11:18 PM
The idea of a Fed audit is wonderfully common-sensical. This is why it is supported to the degree it is.
A cannon of fiduciary responsibility is that a fiduciary owes an accounting any time it is called for (within reason) to the beneficiaries of the trust they hold.
A quasi-governmental agency with the kind of power the Fed is supposed to have should certainly be liable to give an accounting. That is not the same as Congress controlling its actions, which is the idea behind it being somewhat extra-governmental.
As things now stand, the Fed has jumped the fence of its mandate, and THE ONE is pushing to give it VASTLY greater regulatory power that it was never supposed to have.
There are great arguments to be made that the Fed is not only not good, but has been downright destructive in many of its actions through the years, including triggering and worsening the Great Depression.
Bringing it to account is a no-brainer, and I wonder what possible justification could be offered for NOT voting for this measure.
Ragspierre on July 18, 2009 at 11:29 PM
For those who are aware, there is no more a unified Libertarian view than there is a homogenized conservative view.
Some Libertarians have a great deal of common cause with a constitutional conservative. Some don’t.
Ragspierre on July 18, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Ron Paul 3012. LOL.
hawkman on July 18, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Maximus, it is time for your medication.
mrpeabody on July 18, 2009 at 11:51 PM
‘08?? LOL… Paultards are either iditos or just hilarious, most likely both
Norwegian on July 19, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Just because Ron Paul is a libertarian does not mean that all libertarians are as naive about foreign policy and geopolitics as he. I count myself as libertarian and I believe that national defense is perhaps THE most important role of the state since it’s intimately linked with the protection of the rights of the individual. As a libertarian I believe that all national defense should be in the self interest of America and not for altruistic purposes, however my understanding of geopolitics leads me to agree that the removal of Saddam Hussein and the spread of free trade and democracy are directly linked to the self interest of America.
Given that the coming intersection of secular extremism, radical jihad and weapons of mass destruction spells potential disaster for every single American, the war on terror and extremism are of vital importance. Ron Paul doesn’t see it this way and thus he’d make a terrible President. He claims Ayn Rand as an influence – well, Rand clearly stated that the only legitimate roles of government were national defense, law enforcement and a system of courts to enforce contracts, etc. The people are thus free to pursue wealth and happiness in whichever way they so choose so long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others to do the same. The state must ensure the protection of the rights of the individual, including and most importantly the right to go about ones business without the threat of physical coercion. Islamic jihadists pose that threat and must be dealt with. If Ron Paul doesn’t understand this then he’s an idiot.
He’s absolutely right about the economy and I’d quite happily see him in an economic role in the next Republican administration, but a balanced world view he does not have and so please keep him the hell away from anything to do with foreign policy.
Sharke on July 19, 2009 at 12:27 AM
I have a confession to make. During the 2008 PRIMARY Election right after John McCain or McLoser beat Mitt Romney. I was such a hard core Mitt Romney supporter and I was SO PI$$ED that McCain won the primaries…
THAT I VOTED FOR RON PAUL IN MY STATES PRIMARIES!
I knew if I did that I’d be voting with these 9/11 NUTJOBS. But sadly I was so mad about Romney quitting.
rednebulastudios on July 19, 2009 at 12:37 AM
I have met many Ron Paul Supporters. Some were nice to me, others were not. Not all of them believe the 9/11 nonsense.
You can tell which ones believe and which ones don’t.
The Troofers think that if you DISAGREE with them on 9/11, that someway somehow “YOU’RE APART OF THE CONSPIRACY” they yell, scream, and give death threats to you.
The one BIG THING I agree with them on. Is that I do think the Federal Reserve needs to be Audited. It’s my tax dollars I want to know what’s being spent. I also agree with Ron Paul Supporters on that there’s no such IRS law MANDADING Income taxes.
Marijiuana, war on Al-Qaeda, and of course 9/11 is where I am completely 180 against them.
rednebulastudios on July 19, 2009 at 12:40 AM
If he can win the primaries and get the nomination, and beat Obama in the general election he will win the presidency.
I just put finishing touches on your near complete tautology.
Geochelone on July 19, 2009 at 12:44 AM
I just put finishing touches on your near complete
tautologyfantasy.FIFY
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 12:47 AM
If I’ve told MaximusConfessor once I’ve told him a BILLION TIMES: stop exaggerating!
Geochelone on July 19, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Me, I love irony…
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 12:55 AM
Why not?
The republicans may grumble a bit but they WILL vote for the nominee. Ron Paul will get a ton of support from people who may be considered democrats but do not fall in line with the socialist/leftist leanings and are disenchanted with Obama’s lies. Ron Paul will also get tons of support from independents who are sick of the corruption and non voters who do not trust the entire system at all.
Of course Ron Paul is our best candidate.
YOU are the one who is being unrealistic
MaximusConfessor on July 19, 2009 at 12:57 AM
Only when Jean-Luc says, “Make it so…”
I’d have a harder time voting for Paul than McAnus. And that was impossible.
I did vote for Palin, though…
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 1:03 AM
No you aren’t exaggerating, MaxCon is. But I can see how it could be interpreted another way.
Sometimes I am accidentally clever with double entendres.
Geochelone on July 19, 2009 at 1:04 AM
The very best kind…
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 1:05 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t Ron Paul supporters believe that the world will end in 2012, and yet they still want him to be President?
They must want the world to end on his watch, or something. Go figure.
Geochelone on July 19, 2009 at 1:10 AM
Dude, all i can say is, look what drugs did to Michael Jackson. Please.stop.doing.them.
Ron Paul is our best hope? Wow, I really can’t wait for the GOP to die now. If we sink low enough to nominate that goofball turd, we don’t deserve to participate in a national election.
austinnelly on July 19, 2009 at 1:12 AM
I watched him speak just once. That was all I could take. I just couldn’t take him seriously. The guy is just weird. Ron Paul as President would be as good as Ralph Nader as President.
Voter from WA State on July 19, 2009 at 1:41 AM
Oh he does not.
“Nice try. Your try is over.”
–George W. Bush (RINO-TX)
And LGF slumming, no less? Ew.
Ron Paul for Secretary of the Treasury 2012!
Rae on July 19, 2009 at 1:50 AM
R Paul is too looney to win anything.
I think Obambi is toast by 2012 so let’s run a real conservative next time.
Mojave Mark on July 19, 2009 at 2:11 AM
So it was his style, not his substance that was your problem?
stranglin on July 19, 2009 at 2:13 AM
You are very uninformed Look here- libertarian before you make a statement like that you should research you beliefs.
It’s a group of liberals who believe that the a new bright star is in the sky and Maitreya, the World Teacher. will teach us to redistribute our wealth to the world.
Ed Laskie on July 19, 2009 at 3:30 AM
The Drug war is lost. The reason given for the drug war is for stopping people from destroying them self, and crime that goes with it. The Government is at war with its own people. Drug problem is health care issue not criminal. If someone wants to take drugs, thats their problem. If its protecting health, then start regulating every life style including cholesterol, fat, salt… I don’t think so. The war on drugs has resulted in the rise of crime syndicates. Terrorist use it a funding. If it was legal and available, then there would be no reason for them to visit the criminal to support his operations. Hemp being illegal, is preventing from being used in textile industry where it has many beneficial quality’s. Just like prohibition caused crime, and the birth of the Mafia, so has the drug war caused rise of drug syndicates. Marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol. Kids see this hypocrisy and think that must be true of other drugs, and that, is what leads to harder drugs. If it’s legal it will have lost its coolness. If drugs become legal or decriminalized, the subject of health will be focus of conversation, and that will lead to lowing drug use. Doctors are being treated as criminals because they prescribe pain killers to patients who have chronic severe pain. At least with prohibition they had guts to pass a constitutional amendment. This drug war is illegal. If drugs are decriminalized then we can deal with it on state level as a health care issue, or States could still criminalize drugs if they want. It’s not the Federal Governments responsibility to limit individuals rights. Those countries that have stopped the Drug war have seen decrease in drug use and crime related issues. The collateral damage has been way too high. See Cato studies here.
Ed Laskie on July 19, 2009 at 3:49 AM
Folks, don’t know if this has been said, but I will say it.
If things truly go to shite, the most valuable metal will be lead, not gold.
Hard Right on July 19, 2009 at 3:49 AM
“There goes my hero” Playing in the background.
Reaps on July 19, 2009 at 4:03 AM
Dr Ron Paul, who is a DOCTOR, is going to beat back the Obama hordes and save us all in ‘12!
!!!!!!11!!!!!!
YEAH!!! WOO!!!
Oh, yeah, and then he’ll get to the truth about 9/11, too, pinpointing once and for all whether it was the Jews or the Bush administration that mass murdered thousands of Americans in order to wage war on Iraq without bothering to plant any evidence actually connecting Iraq directly.
Either way, Herr Dr. Paul, who I remind you IS A DOCTOR!!1!, will suss out the truth.
Help us Obi-Ron Paulobi; you’re our only hope.
Kensington on July 19, 2009 at 5:24 AM
I see the neocons are out in full force with their CIA friend Glenn Beck who called Ron Paul supporters nuts, as did I in some other capacity. But then I did something some of you neocons do not know what to do…THINK!
Dr. Paul has 271 house supporters for his audit the fed bill, which was to have been given a Senate chance by Jim DeMint, but then leftist Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson blocked it due to something silly called Rule 16 and another neocon, TN’s Lamar Alexander said NYET to it!
Another name you people need to watch out for…Peter Schiff…who SHOULD challenge Chris Dodd for his Senate seat here in CT-Stan, leaving government insider Rob Simmons out of the picture.
And for the record, I am a reformed Democrat, turned paleocon WHO BELIEVES IN THE CONSTITUTION and I support Ron Paul, Schiff, Chuck Baldwin and only one OTHER person in Congress…Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota WHO SHOULD BE SENATOR INSTEAD OF QUEER NATION ICON AL FRANKEN! YOU 10K LAKERS KNOW HOW TO PICK EM…NOT!
My “representative” (sarcasm) is uber lefty Jim Himes, who beat RINO Repub Chris Shays…TALK ABOUT LOSE-LOSE! ANYHOW, I VOTED FOR THE LIBERTARIAN IN THE RACE! Worse than that, he will not support Paul’s audit the Fed bill…GROUNDS FOR RECALL IN MY FRANK OPINION! He happens to serve on the House finance committee.
And speaking of queer nation, DO NOT ANYONE GET ME STARTED ON BRUNO, WHOSE UNFUNNY STAR SACHA BARON COHEN THREATENED RON PAUL!
BobAnthony on July 19, 2009 at 8:18 AM
Loxodonta on July 19, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Did you enjoy your staycation away from the computer? How are you?
Cindy Munford on July 19, 2009 at 9:58 AM
I want the truth on why Charles Johnson is even more annoying in a way than truthers (who are disgusting cranks).
As a person who believes in evolution, please Charles shut up.
Mr. Joe on July 19, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Absolutely not. McCain only had one advantage over Paul- he wasn’t insane. We needed someone like FRED!, but you guys needed someone who couldn’t win.
Way too late to worry about that.
Squiggy on July 19, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Absolutely not. McCain only had one advantage over Paul- he wasn’t THAT insane.
Just a little editing suggestion…
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 10:37 AM
He wants to go back to his left wing roots so he is looking for reasons to ditch the conservatives who made his blog great.
Hilts on July 19, 2009 at 11:23 AM
He (Charlie Johnson) is now a heterosexual version of Andrew Sullivan.
Hilts on July 19, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Speaking of Little Green Footballs – why is it on Hot Air’s blog roll (under War on Terror) when it never covers the war on terror any more and is so politically correct as regards Islam? Is someone too lazy to remove it? Johnson has threatened to reveal “things” about Michelle Malkin and refers to this blog as a ‘hate site’.
Hilts on July 19, 2009 at 11:33 AM
I missed you. I’m happy you said hello.
Loxodonta on July 19, 2009 at 11:47 AM
AP should know with so many former members of LGF posting here that when he starts a discussion with “Via LGF” we’re going to be skeptical.
As far as Ron Paul, I don’t see him any different from any other politician. There will be some things you like and agree with him on and others you won’t at all.
moonsbreath on July 19, 2009 at 11:50 AM
He makes much more poignant film cameos than any other politician I can think of
runner on July 19, 2009 at 11:58 AM
This is misinformation. Ron Paul doesn’t promote a “gold backed” gold standard. Read what he wrote in a chapter of the book; “The Gold Standard” Perspectives in the Austrian School (Chapter 7).
Besides that, your logic is irrelevant when compared to history. Perhaps you can point me to the historic accounting of “aluminum” or “dry-wall” as a medium of exchange.
For those who want to know what’s really going on with the U.S. dollar and gold, I wrote an article on the decoupling of the two; Confused About Gold and the Dollar? Understand Their Relationship Before You Invest and another article of interest; What Really Backs the U.S. Dollar?
Fed Up on July 19, 2009 at 12:39 PM
I have listened to Ron Paul speaking several times and thought, ‘Wow!, this guy really does get it.’ Then he says something else and reveal himself to be a complete loon. He has some good ideas, but this man is not a rational person to be taken seriously.
TXMomof3 on July 19, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Posting a thread about Paul is like turning off the lights in a run-down kithchen: The cockroaches comes out…
Can’t believe these loony Paultards were among the usually excellent HotAir posters.
Norwegian on July 19, 2009 at 1:11 PM
And they say Palin supporters are cultish.
Weee-oooo-weee-oooo!
Yeah, dudes, it’s all a conspiracy. It’s neocons vs. paleocons vs. crunchy-cons, forget who has the Presidency and the COngress, they’re not worth dealing with.
For the record, I’m a Hayekian Friedmanite bordering on Bastiatism – but when Herr Doctor Science shoots off his mouth with his conspiracy crap and his wacko associations, he’s not just shooting himself in the foot, he’s shooting us ALL in the foot.
Between the Pon Raul implosion and the huge influx of creepy black-armband nihilists and lefty rejects into the Libertarian Party, the Liberty Movement is so disorganized that they spend more time trying to alienate allies than gather them – Libertarians had more influence in the Republican Party in the 90s than they do now by a longshot.
In the 90s, it was not uncommon to hear R’s say they had “Libertarian leanings,” good luck now, they don’t want to be associated with crazy Troofers or Paul’s Neo Nazi newsletters (and don’t even bother trying to wiggle out of that one, you lost that one over and over and over).
I tried to argue, for years, that the Libertarians would GET MORE DONE by forming alliances while holding true to their own values than by DEMANDING ideological purity and pissing off allies – especially since no two Libertarians ever have quite the same laundry list.
But NOOO, better to make excuses for Saddam (what the Hell happened, Lew?) or insane conspiracy theories (what happened on 9/11 is one of the most investigated events in history, and every “alternative” theory, from orbital masers to missiles painted as planes, has been THOROUGHLY trashed)…
If the Libertarian Party ever gets its head out of its backside, I’d love to hang out again, like I did for so many years. But as piss-poor as Republicans have been lately, they’ve accomplished ten times as much for Liberty as Libertarians have – and it’s pathetic to think how little even that is.
/RANT OFF before I REALLY get started…
Merovign on July 19, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Well, as it happens, I can point you to the historical FACT that…until modern time…aluminum was far more precious than gold. Look it up.
As to the “dry-wall” it has been commonplace to use a medium of little or no intrinsic value as a medium of exchange. Or is this news to you? Really…???
Wampum had no intrinsic value. Most coins of ancient cultures had an intrinsic value far below what their currency value would be, and were made of relative base metals…or, indeed, wood.
Dr. Paul should have taught you better.
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 3:22 PM
I never said Dr. Paul said anything. So how could I be “misinforming”?
I made some quite true statements. Refute them, if you wish, but don’t put me in a debate with Dr. Paul.
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 3:25 PM
I have written that Libertarians have earned all the political clout of a Trekky Convention. And for many of the same reasons.
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 3:27 PM
I’ve been following Allahpundit’s attack on Ron Paul from the days before the Presidential election. This person has an infatuation of lame attempts of attacking Paul. See: 12:35 pm on March 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
As usual, this person got this wrong too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60TWZNVgtk
Spend your time attacking Obama on his warmongering in Afghanistan. Oh, wait…you neoconservatives (not to be confused with the Old Republican Party’s getting the U.S. out of Korea and Vietnam), love war!
Try reading “The Betrayal of the American Right” and see how the Republican party has changed for the worse.
I called this way before the election started: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/19/ron-paul-why-arent-these-neocon-warmongers-reaching-out-to-my-supporters/#comment-1163149
Nothings changed…except Allahpundit’s attacks on Ron Paul…who represents what once was…
Try no warmongering and fiscal responsibility (Hannity never talked about this while the Bush administration spending was out of control and only started once Obama got elected). Hannity also never talked about the Patriot Act or Bush’s socialistic drug prescription program.
Democrats are worse than Republicans, but both parties wear the same cloth. The Dems have always loved war. Obama wants to finish the job in Afghanistan and has already threatened Pakistan (before and after being elected). And of course the Dems love spending.
Bottom line for Republicans is that going away from your Republican roots is what lost you the 2006 and 2008 Congress and the 2008 Presidential election. Continuing the infatuation with war won’t win you the next (unless Kristol and the boys can dream up some new threat to the U.S. like the show “24″). Fight on! That’s all you got! Hannity can talk a good game about less spending….anything to get their spender in the White House! He’s nothing but a con man. A warmongering one at that.
And William Amos, wish I had time to go into all of your nonsense. I decided to only address Ragspierre’s misinformation about the Gold Standard in my preceding post.
I look at things from an economic and investment point of view folks. You reap what you sow. I’m also trying to make a difference in America’s future. Unlike Allahpundit, who would rather attack a person (Paul) on some frivilous truther nonsense when Ron Paul was right all along about the negative economic consequences of foreign interventionism.
Personally, I’m trying to help people prepare for what is to come….and maybe, just maybe get the Republican Party back to its successful roots.
Naturally the neoconservatives out there will view this post as nonsense. To them I say, how has your party’s platform worked so far? Since it hasn’t worked, would returning to your Republican roots take the party back? And if it will, is the party strong enough to weed out the warmongering talking heads that buried it to begin with? I already know the answer is no.
Good luck with that…
Fed Up on July 19, 2009 at 3:40 PM
I’ll call multiple BS here.
Multiply.
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 3:47 PM
This type of gold standard (currency backed by) is not the same type that Paul supports or anyone from the Austrian school. So I refute your using it in trying to compare “aluminum” and “dry-wall” standards as being the same. This is like saying that aluminum and dry-wall have some sort of history as a monetary unit of exchange. I asked you to explain to me this history that you call “quite true.”
It’s a bogus and irrelevant analogy.
Fed Up on July 19, 2009 at 3:47 PM
And I call Hannity on it…He’s nothing but a shill for the warmongering side of the RP.
Fed Up on July 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM
.
Really?, ’spian to to me, Looocy. How is it “not the same type”.
By-the-by, you are arguing with Dr. Sowell here, so…please, by all means…knock yourself out. I will simply quote him, as I have paraphrased him to this point…
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM
And I call Hannity on it…He’s nothing but a shill for the warmongering side of the RP.
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM
C’mon…
tell us WHY it is “bogus and irrelevant”.
C’mon…
pleeeeese….
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM
I’ll enjoy the exchange then Dr. Sowell..despite the “Loocy” type comments.
Read pages 137 and 138 from “The Gold Standard” book that I referenced in my original post. The section is titled “Agenda for Monetary Reform.”
He knows the only way Americans will accept the Gold Standard (not backed by) is for Gold and the U.S. dollar to trade side by side in a “free market” and let the People decide.
You can defend the U.s. dollar all you want, but there are no “golden handcuffs” which allows governments to get us into the economic bubbles and busts predicted by Austrian Business Cycle Theory (let alone undeclared wars).
As you know, Paul is a strict Constitutionalist and adhere’s to Section 10 where it states: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”
Anything else said about what Paul said would be taken out of context or misinterpreted by the media, just like Allahpundit tried to do with this article.
But I’m willing to hear what you have to say….
Fed Up on July 19, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Once you show me the historic monetary analysis of “aluminum” and “dry-wall” which I have kindly asked for twice.
Fed Up on July 19, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Ummm… No. I don’t have the book, and I’m not getting it instantaneously. It appears that Mr. Paul did not write the book you are attributing to him, unless you have some secret knowledge the rest of the world is not privy to…
Ummm… They DO, <em>every day.
Duh…
Like I said about fifty posts back, Milton Friedman considered the “gold standard” impractical, but DID suggest a limitation on how much the money supply could be increased in any year.
But, as I said about fifty posts back, THE ONE is an outlaw, and would not be limited by anything you did to control the supply of money.
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM
“Whatever the money consists of–sea shells, gold, or WHATEVER–more of it in the economy means higher prices.”
Basic Economics, Dr. Thomas Sowell, pg. 259, para. 4. Emphasis mine, to help those too slow to get it otherwise.
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Exactly…that’s why historically Paul sometimes would be the only vote against a bill because the bill didn’t adhere to the Constitution. And some people have a problem with that….
What really makes me wonder though is how following these raido and TV personalities like they are demi-gods, holding on to every word they say as the gospel truth, were not calling Bush on his policies during the 2006 and 2008 failed Republican elections. All of a sudden these pundits have the answers (which they are getting better on understanding economics although still Keynesian at heart). When push comes to shove, they still don’t understand the economic ramifications of warmongering and the best thing that happened to the Republican Party was Obama getting the blame for some of Bush’s groundwork…but Obama is cut from the same cloth, so nothing will “change.”
Ever play the game of Risk? Ever read the words of Sun Tzu?
Wouldn’t things be better if we just took care of our own business like our failing infrastructure with our tax dollars?
Fed Up on July 19, 2009 at 4:26 PM
He wrote Chapter 7 if you would read my original post.
Can you go down to the local bank and get gold? No.
If you are a “Dr.” why the condescending remarks like “duh?” Me thinks you’re not who you say you are.
And with no “golden handcuffs” this will never happen. You can trust Government to Spend. Period.
Fed Up on July 19, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Golly, was Sun Tzu an isolationist?
You’ve heard of that, right? Failed every time its been tried.
But, thank you for this little demonstration.
Ron Paul has VERY LITTLE in common with conservatives.
But he has proven he has so little integrity that he will co-opt the term, and claim to be the heir of Reagan to get his ass elected to higher office.
This has been illuminating, and we all thank you.
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 4:31 PM
“Whatever the money consists of–sea shells, gold, or WHATEVER–more of it in the economy means higher prices.”
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 4:25 PM
The proper definition of inflation is an increase in the money supply (printing and credit combined), not “higher prices.”
If all the money in the world bought all the goods in the world, and you doubled the money supply, then all the goods in the world would cost twice as much. That’s inflation.
Still no “aluminum” or “dry-wall” defense, but a deferment now to “sea shells.” Could you provide the economic historic account of sea shells as a medium of exchange compared to gold?
Thank you.
Fed Up on July 19, 2009 at 4:34 PM
So? Gold is traded on the open (i.e., free) market. So are dollars.
Are you seriously this dumb?
I never claimed in my posts to be a doctor. I happen to be one, but I never said it before this post. Look it up.
Why? If you have a guy willing to break the law of contract and the law of bankruptcy, violate the Constitution willy-nilly, what magic can you imagine would constrain him?
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Beyond this, I am making rubble bounce. Which is fun, but a waste of time.
then, in the same post
Fed Up is an idiot.
Ragspierre on July 19, 2009 at 4:40 PM
You make the typical mistake of “taking care of our own business and defending our own wide open borders” as “isolationist.” Interesting.
So we should just let everything fall apart here while we are over there right? Sure. It’s working so well isn’t it?
I think I’m through talking with you.
Not so “illuminating” and you never did provide me with answers to my questions about those “irrelevant analogies.”
Have to go now…there’s more ignorance to expose…
Thanks Allahpundit for a revisit to the past, but try and debate Ron Paul’s positions and you’ll see they are the same positions of the Old Right.
For those interested in reading how the Republican Party got hijacked, read “The Betrayal of the American Right.”
It’s can be read for free here: http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf
Fed Up on July 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »