Ron Paul & 9/11

From the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas Yahoo! group comes this item:


There is a lot of concern expressed by the more politically realistic supporters of Ron Paul on MySpace that the 9/11 Truth Conspirators are political cannon fodder for the enemies of Ron Paul. Being branded a wacko is the kiss of death politically. The average person will simply ignore Ron Paul because he’s the guy that thinks George Bush planned 9/11.

It would really help put this to rest if Ron Paul could clarify what he thinks about 9/11 and what should be done. All I know is what I heard from separate video clips. He thinks there should be more investigations but he personally does not think Bush planned 9/11.

With the right approach I think Ron Paul can end this as a potential political land mind. Reagan with a single witty line in the debate with Mondale effectively ended the “age” issue.

This issue was brought up by an individual RLC member, not the group as a whole, but speaking personally, I think we in the Ron Paul camp should distance ourselves far, far, far away from these 9/11 conspiracy folks. This sort of thinking—the 9/11 “truth” movement—gets you nowhere in any political career. If Ron Paul is to be taken seriously, we need to distance ourselves from these “truth” seekers; not that they don’t raise legitimate questions, but for Ron Paul’s campaign to be taken seriously by the media, primary voters and the public, we can’t have the stain of a bunch of nutjobs ruining a very effective, grassroots campaign.

76 Responses to “Ron Paul & 9/11”

  1. globalist_elitist Says:

    Get ready for Bad Andy. Maybe this can even bring Eric Dondero and Donfascist out of their holes.

    Look, Paul is obviously going to attract these 9/11 loons because they are losers, and they are going to be attracted to a guy with a pessimistic/loser ideology.

    The fact is that America is awesome. Capitalism is awesome. The Fed is awesome. Income taxes suck, but the financial infrastructure is awesome.

    Instead of focusing on lowering tax rates and cutting spending, these nutjobs want to abolish the greatest system in the history of mankind. That is pessimistic loserdom talking. All people who’ve never made a dime in their life who think that it’s “too hard.” Well quit complaining, start working, and start enjoying the benefits that await you.

    Ron Paul sucks.

  2. globalist_elitist Says:

    Might I also add that globalization and open immigration are awesome, gay marriage is totally sweet, and reproductive rights rule!

  3. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    You can. That is the kind of Freedom that Ron Paul supports. =)

    Anyways. I agree. The 9/11 Truth Movement may well be of genuine interest…but it is a graveyard politically, and no one who wishes people to vote for them should wander into this graveyard. I can agree that it needs more investigating….but accusing Bush?
    Please..he almost choked to death on a pretzel.

  4. Anthony Distler Says:

    Yeah, that’s the thing. All these Bush bashers want to accuse Bush of planning 9/11, when CLEARLY he doesn’t have the mental capabalities to pull something like that off.

    Now Cheney…

  5. matt Says:

    I don’t actually think that Ron Paul really thinks that “Bush did 9/11” or something similar. What he might think is that there never was a decent investigation and that a good one should be done. An independent grand jury, anyone?

  6. Trent Hill Says:

    He doesnt. He has said it definetly deserves more investigation though.

  7. Jason C. Says:

    No way in hell Ron Paul thinks that our gov much less Bush engineered 9/11. If you want to blame Bush than you have to blame Clinton, and if you blame Clinton than why not Carter or Bush Sr.? It could go on and on.

    Ron Paul nees to slowly turn and quickly run away from these nut-jobs. He’ll attract every conspiracy nut, anti-American out there.

    -Jason

  8. Cato Kid Says:

    What needs to be investigated thoroughly and honestly, which is what I think Ron Paul is referring to, is why the Bush and Clinton administrations failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

  9. Jason Says:

    I agree.

  10. Jay Matthews Says:

    The official explanation of 9/11 is loaded with holes, errors, and omissions and certainly warrants further investigation. Such a viewpoint is not new. But yes, it won’t gain you favor with the voting public and is political suicide.

    Anyone else catch the recent story of John Kerry admitting he believes what happened to WTC 7 was a controlled and deliberate demolition? I’m not a Kerry supporter but it’s refreshing to see someone as high-profile as he is speak his mind (and use his brain) even if it collides with the official story.

  11. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    April 30th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
    Get ready for Bad Andy. Maybe this can even bring Eric Dondero and Donfascist out of their holes.

    Look, Paul is obviously going to attract these 9/11 loons because they are losers, and they are going to be attracted to a guy with a pessimistic/loser ideology.

    The fact is that America is awesome. Capitalism is awesome. The Fed is awesome. Income taxes suck, but the financial infrastructure is awesome.”

    You are obviously don’t know what you are talking about. The Federal Reserve System has NOTHING to do with capitalism, at least not free market capitalism. The USA is moving further and further away from the free market. What you call “capitalism” is REALLY corporate fascism. The corporations are creations of the state and are in fact owned in large part by the state (see www.CAFR1.com for more details on how government entities are the largest shareholders of corporate America).

    Why do you go around pretending to be a libertarian when it is clear that you are not? You are basically an economic fascist with libertine & leftist social views.

    Ron Paul is not the only Libertarian Presidential candidate that opposed the Federal Reserve System. Harry Browne also opposed the Fed, as did Michael Badnarik, and as far as I know every Libertarian Presidential candidate has opposed the Federal Reserve and abolishing the Federal Reserve is a part of the LP platform, or at least it was until the recent gutting (I’d have to check and see whether or not it is still there – of course there is a lot left out of the current platform so if it is not there it doesn’t necessarily mean that something is supported if it is not mentioned). Some agency printing “money” out of thin air and then loaning it to the government with interest and people being forced to accept it as “legal tender” has NOTHING to do with liberty and is in fact anti-liberty.

    “Instead of focusing on lowering tax rates and cutting spending, these nutjobs want to abolish the greatest system in the history of mankind.”

    How is this the greatest system of all time? Only a naive fool would believe this. It is precisely because of the Federal Reserve that taxes and spending are so high.

    So you think that the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Morgans, and the Warburgs really had the public’s best interest in mind when they created the Fed and bought off a bunch of politicians to ram it into “law”?

    As for 9/11, 9/11 Truthers are some of the most hardcore freedom fighters around. The 9/11 Truth Movement has grown rapidly over the past 5 years and 7 months since 9/11. It has grown far more than the Libertarian Party or any other “third” party and has in fact grown more than all “third” parties combined. 9/11 Truthers are going to need a candidate to vote for because they sure aren’t going to vote for Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton or any other “establishment” politicians.

    I’m glad that there are some people in the Republican Liberty Caucus that are supporting Ron Paul, but unfortunately the Republican Liberty Caucus is filled with a bunch of pansy moderates that don’t have the courage to face reality. I know that Ron is aware of the New World Order and is in fact doing everything he can to fight them. If you pansies in the RLC don’t have the guts to confront reality that’s fine, you can hide in the corner while the REAL hardcore freedom fighters hit the bad guys where it hurts them the most, and that is shining the light of truth on to their monumental scams.

  12. Andy Says:

    “I can agree that it needs more investigating….but accusing Bush?
    Please..he almost choked to death on a pretzel.”

    Nobody is saying that Bush alone planned 9/11. Bush is merely another cog in the wheel. It is the crime syndicate that Bush fronts for that planned and carried out the attack. The evidence indicates that Bush was in on it, but it is not as though he came up with the plan himself.

  13. Joey Dauben Says:

    Even if this conspiracy theory garbage is true, what can be done about it? Nothing.

    Do you people vote? Are you registered to vote? Honestly, are you guys registered to vote? Or are you the separatist, Kool-Aid-drinking “IT’S Y2K! LETS CREATE BUNKERS” people who don’t believe in being apart of the “system” any more?

    There’s not a single 9/11 conspiracy theory that will help Ron Paul.

    Stick to your Yahoo! groups and leave the presidential race to people who are talking the issues and wanting to change this place in a mainstream direction.

  14. Charlie Tango Says:

    Ron Paul is a man of the american people and he is a sincere politician? How cool is that?

  15. Skull / Bones » Blog Archive » Says:

    [...] an issue that will be dogging Ron Paul’s presidential race: 9/11 Truth, whatsayyou? [...]

  16. Kn@ppster Says:

    Cato,

    You write:

    “What needs to be investigated thoroughly and honestly, which is what I think Ron Paul is referring to, is why the Bush and Clinton administrations failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks.”

    True enough, although it’s a bit pointed. There’s not a single answer to it, and not all of the answers would be satisfactory to many people.

    The government has been its own worst enemy versus the 9/11 “Truth” types. Its refusal to divulge information that would likely be embarrassing or compromising has created a vacuum into which the “Truthers” are free to pour their own creations.

  17. Andy Says:

    “Joey Dauben Says:

    May 1st, 2007 at 12:41 am
    Even if this conspiracy theory garbage is true,”

    Why do you refer to it as “garbage”? How much research have you done on 9/11? You must be one of those people who parrots the official government story, which itself is a conspiracy theory. Why do you automatically believe the government’s story about 9/11? Do you believe everything that the government tells you?

    “what can be done about it? Nothing.”

    Saying that nothing can be done about it is a defeatist attitude. What can be done about it is that we should keep spreading investigating the evidence and spreading the truth. I’d like to eventually see criminal charges brought up against the real perpetrators.

    9/11 Truth is the New World Order’s Achilles Heel. If the truth gets out to enough people it could bring the whole house of cards crumbling down on them.

    “Do you people vote? Are you registered to vote?”

    Yes, I vote as do many other 9/11 Truthers.

    “Stick to your Yahoo! groups and leave the presidential race to people who are talking the issues and wanting to change this place in a mainstream direction.”

    Who in the hell are you to tell us what to do? 9/11 is probably the biggest issue right now.

    As for being mainstream, it is becoming mainstream. More and more people are waking up to 9/11 Truth every day. Even Rosie O’Donnell is talking about it now.

    A candidate that embraces the 9/11 Truth Movement has the potential to get millions of votes based on that issue alone.

  18. Wes Says:

    Right on Andy, you hit the nail right on. Representative Paul has never acknowledged that 9/11 was a “conspiracy theory” although I certainly believe that there were sinister elements involved in its perpetration, at least Dr. Paul is willing to reopen the investigation with an independent panel to investigate as opposed to a government panel which doesn’t even mention WTC 7 in their report. Our strength will grow through our conviction to reveal the truth and we know who the difference between the politicians and the statesmen, Ron Paul is the latter of these and has my vote.

  19. Ethan Hunt Says:

    Think for a moment how the Iraq war would be perceived and supported all around the world if, say, a couple of tons of ricin and VX, and portable chemical and biological weapons labs in the back of a couple of trucks, had been found buried in the Iraqi desert. Think how easy it would have been for the US Government to have put them there given the hundreds of thousands of square miles of open desert in that benighted land.

    Then think for a minute what Hollywood inspired resources would have been necessary to pull off even half of the science fiction scenarios 9/11 inside jobbers insist the unbelievably incompetent Bush Administration made real. In total secrecy. With total security. And kept that way for more than five and a half years. And now with a Democrat majority in both houses.

    Does anyone not under a physicians care really thing the MSM would rather be covering a steel supported expressway collapse due to a gas truck crash and fire?

  20. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Just saw Ron Paul on CNBC. He was ok, I guess… maybe came off as a little bit kooky. Particularly since they paired his interview with another one involving Dennis Kucinich.

    Paul actually was doing alright until he started talking about fiat money and he stumbled a few times over his prepared points. The guy interviewing him seemed sort of bored and you could feel him writing Paul off as a fringe candidate.

  21. NH4RonPaul Says:

    Not to worry folks…NH has given Ron the most money of any R candidate, second only to Mitt Romney. So he is the second most popular candidate in the state and he doesn’t even have an office here yet!

    No one associates him with the 911 truth people, they were just some students who showed up at the fundraiser. The other 180 or so people were solid citizen with $$ to give and unwaivering support.

    Be sure to watch the debates Thurs nite!

  22. Winston Smith Says:

    globalist_elitist Says:

    April 30th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
    Look, Paul is obviously going to attract these 9/11 loons because they are losers, and they are going to be attracted to a guy with a pessimistic/loser ideology.

    The fact is that America is awesome. Capitalism is awesome. The Fed is awesome. Income taxes suck, but the financial infrastructure is awesome

    Yeah, real awsome. We have, let me see..
    -killed 45 million unborn, innocent lives
    -invade any nation at will we IMperially wish
    -sterilize, by force and against their will, women from the 1920’s to early 1970’s
    -lie to and infect with STD’s black Tuskegee Airman

    Capitalism means the few have control over the levers of power and moeny, the rest are wage slaves and have to be “yes sir” men 24/7 to the boss, who controls their very lives.

    By the way, why are those seeking the truth about 9/11-including family members, reporters, politicians, etc-loons??

    As always, you spout stupidity and moronic phlem. Do some research and stop waving your “made in chinese slave labor camps” American flag celebrating your “freedom” to be a wage slave to corporate interests and their lacky politicians.

  23. Winston Smith Says:

    Jason C. Says:

    April 30th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
    No way in hell Ron Paul thinks that our gov much less Bush engineered 9/11. If you want to blame Bush than you have to blame Clinton, and if you blame Clinton than why not Carter or Bush Sr.? It could go on and on.

    Ron Paul nees to slowly turn and quickly run away from these nut-jobs. He’ll attract every conspiracy nut, anti-American out there.

    -Jason

    The blame my dense and emotionalistic fellow goes far back. Those that have done the reserach and lay it out are not nut jobs, mindless flag wavers and seig heilers to Bush are the stupid fucks.

    What is anti-American is going along and believing whatever Govt says. TR-no fan of constitutional Govt even said that it is morally wrong to say “my country right or wrong”

    Try cleaning your brain out of Faux “News” and Bill O’Sex Pervert. While you are at it, flush Rush too.

    Get a brain and stop flooding a site that is devoted to 3rd parties. You may want to check out an RNC forums, where you sound like you would fit in great, bah bah sheep

  24. Winston Smith Says:

    For anyone with a brain, here is an investigative movie into 9/11 by a self-admitted conservative Republican:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+truth&hl=en

    Look at the science, the first hand interviews, etc. Unless of course you are a helpless, hapless sheeeep.

    Jefferson, et al would not simply “trust the Govt”

  25. Tom Bryant Says:

    Wow…Andy thinks that the FED actually prints money? Such ignorance is priceless.

  26. Sean Scallon Says:

    I’ve never heard Paul ever talk 9-11 from a conspiracy standpoint, otherwise he would have even less support than he does now. So long as Ron doesn’t pontificate about Tower No. 7, I don’t think he has anything to worry about on this front.

  27. Kn@ppster Says:

    Quoth Austin Cassidy:

    “... until he started talking about fiat money …”

    Exactly.

    Paul’s had a lot of support over the years from a few wealthy goldbugs, and he feels the need to give their pet issue some airtime.

    The question is whether or not he knows when enough is enough.

    99.9% of Americans aren’t interested in the intricacies of monetary policy and aren’t going to get interested in the intricacies of monetary policy until and unless they suddenly start having to cart wheelbarrows full of Federal Reserve Notes to the c-store any time they want to buy a hot dog and a soda.

    20%+ inflation in the mid- to late 70s wasn’t enough to create a popular movement for hard currency. The idea that any significant number of Americans are going to get their panties in a wad about fiat currency with inflation in single digits is unrealistic.

    The candidate who spends his face time discussing issues voters don’t care about becomes a candidate voters don’t care about.

  28. globalist_elitist Says:

    hahaah, I love it. The right-wing regressivist Andy comes out of his shell, and then he is joined by the left-wing Commie, Wiston Smith. Both moronically hate capitalism, hate America, and think that 9/11 was an inside job. The fringe comes back around and touches at the nutty center of a shit-coated candy bar.

    Knappster says “99.9% of Americans aren’t interested in the intricacies of monetary policy and aren’t going to get interested in the intricacies of monetary policy until and unless they suddenly start having to cart wheelbarrows full of Federal Reserve Notes…”

    Well, then they’re not going to get interested, because that’s not going to happen. And as for the “0.01%” who do care about monetary policy, 99% of them are strongly pro-Fed, and they are the ones with the money to fund campaigns. Thank the non-existant god for capitalism.

    Facts:

    1. Historically, the only popular movements for currency reform were for a “softer” currency, not a harder one.

    2. 90%+ of recessions, panics, and depressions throughout American history were brought about through DEFLATION, not inflation, and that deflation was directly related to the backing of the dollar by a worthless metal.

    The Fed helps supply the national financial infrastructure that is responsible for our high quality of life. Is it in the nation’s best interests? Of course it is! The rich cannot succceed without lifting up the poor. GROWTH IS GOOD. The objective of the rich and powerful is more growth. Growth lifts people out of poverty and raises living standards. This is what you right/left wackos hate. You hate the idea that “values” evolve over time, and that non-market-based values erode. You hate the fact that women are in the workplace. You hate the fact that blacks and other minorities have their rights protected. You hate the fact that the “old way” of doing things falls by the wayside with each generation. And mostly, you hate the fact that you have to get up off of your lazy asses and work.

    Finally, inflation was never sustained at 20%+. It peaked at around 18% per annum. But it has been a managable 2-3% for the past several decades. That’s pro-growth.

  29. globalist_elitist Says:

    By the way, Ron Paul continues to get play from DavidDuke.com

    http://www.davidduke.com/general/lou-dobbs-tonight-interview-segment-with-rep-ron-paul_1825.html

    Ron Paul was on Lou Dobbs, above. Maybe he’ll pick Dobbs to be his running mate and Duke to be his AG.

  30. matt Says:

    If he wants someone prejuidiced, he could just pick you.

  31. Trent Hill Says:

    Wow,that little tangent strayed pretty far of topic GE. Perhaps a personal best.

    Im tired of your rhetoric…can you play a new game now?

  32. globalist_elitist Says:

    Yeah, you’re tired of my “rhetoric” because it is the truth, and you don’t know how to deal with it.

    Ouch, Matt. That hurt. I’m sorry I’m exposing your idol, but my guess is he would rather pick someone wh supports him – like David Duke – to be his VP, then someone who does not. I don’t blame him for that.

  33. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    Your rhetoric isn’t even close to truth. We’ve proved it wrong about a hunred times, on about a hundred threads, but you keep spouting your devisive filth. I know how to deal with it…i’m treating you like any other 4 year old. K pumpkin?

    As for David Duke, we’ve already made this point. Just because David Duke supports Ron Paul, it doesn’t automatically work vice versa. You might support Mr. West from New Paltz…but i’ll bet he wouldn’t support you.

  34. Andy Says:

    “Tom Bryant Says:

    May 1st, 2007 at 10:48 am
    Wow…Andy thinks that the FED actually prints money? Such ignorance is priceless.”

    I KNOW that the Fed does not actually print the money. They do CREATE the “money” though. I’ve read G. Edward Griffin’s “The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve System” (available at www.realityzone.com ) which is probably the best book ever written on the subject. In fact, I’ve got the book sitting next to me right now.

  35. Tom Bryant Says:

    Outside of conspiracy/hardcore libertarian circles, very few people consider Griffin to be an expert on the subject. There is a reason for this, as his work has way too much conspiracy nonsense to be taken seriously. With such a groundbreaking masterpiece, you’d think that it would be required text for grad programs in economics/finance.

    You’re right that the FED has control over the money supply. That may or may not be a good thing, but the Constitution has given that power to the government, and, despite a few depressions, it has worked out well for the vast majority of Americans.

    Like the postal service, I believe that various functions of the FED would be better served by private corporations competing with each other. You can make a stronger argument for that than you can by going off on the NWO/Illumanati/shape-shifting reptile thing.

  36. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 1st, 2007 at 1:04 pm
    hahaah, I love it. The right-wing regressivist Andy comes out of his shell, and then he is joined by the left-wing Commie, Wiston Smith. Both moronically hate capitalism, hate America, and think that 9/11 was an inside job. The fringe comes back around and touches at the nutty center of a shit-coated candy bar.”

    How am I a “right wing regressivist” when I want to eliminate the IRS and the Federal Reserve and legal tender laws and as much government as possible? Unlike you, I’m in favor of a real free market.

    Also, unlike you I don’t believe everything the government says. I question government and investigate everything they say because I know that they have a history of lying. Evidence:

    The government story about the sinking of the Lusitania which was the pretext for American involvement into World War 1 turned out to be a LIE.

    The government story about the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor without warning turned out to be a LIE.

    The government story about the Vietnamese attacking American Navy ships in the Gulf of Tonkin turned out to be a LIE.

    The government story about the Israeli military sinking the USS Liberty turned out to be a LIE.

    The government story about the Iran-Contra affair turned out the be a LIE.

    The government stories that built up to first war against Iraq turned out to be a LIE.

    The government story about Waco turned out to be a LIE.

    The governnment stories that built up to the second war against Iraq turned out to be a LIE.

    These are just a few examples of how our government has LIED to us. So when there is a clear pattern of LYING from our government, why is it unreasonable to think that the official government story about 9/11 is also a LIE, especially when there is a lot of evidence to back this up?

    Why in the hell do you automatically endorse the official government story when that itself is a conspiracy theory?

  37. Andy Says:

    “1. Historically, the only popular movements for currency reform were for a “softer” currency, not a harder one.”

    “Popular reforms” pushed by the ignorant public and the bankers.

    “2. 90%+ of recessions, panics, and depressions throughout American history were brought about through DEFLATION, not inflation, and that deflation was directly related to the backing of the dollar by a worthless metal.”

    You obviously don’t know history very well. The bankers engineered recessions and panics long before the Federal Reserve exsisted.

    Gold & silver is not worthless. In fact, both are worth far more than paper. Paper basically grows on trees.

    Also, gold & silver doesn’t necessarily have to be the only forms of money, it just so happens that historically those two items are what has worked best as money. I’m in favor of repealing legal tenders laws, so if some people want to come up with alternate forms of currency they should be free to do so.

  38. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pm
    By the way, Ron Paul continues to get play from DavidDuke.com”

    As for GE claiming that Ron Paul is a racist just because David Duke has mentioned him on his website, Ron sure doesn’t sound like a racist in this article.

    Government and Racism
    By Ron Paul

    April 16, 2007

    The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

    The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.

    It’s also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we’re told it’s proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, “Congress shall make NO law.”

    Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

    In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.

    The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.

    Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

    The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

    More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

  39. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pm
    By the way, Ron Paul continues to get play from DavidDuke.com”

    This is really an absurd notion that just because David Duke has stuff about Ron Paul on his website that this must mean that Ron Paul is a horrible racist who supports David Duke. If David Duke is indeed currently in support of Ron Paul for President I’d say that it would be because there is no candidate in the race – or at no other major party candidate in the race – that supports the following.

    1) Pulling the military out of Iraq and not going to war with Iran. I don’t know how anti-war David Duke really is, but I do know that he opposes the war in Iraq and that he also opposes going to war against Iran. Duke specifically opposes these wars because he sees them as being pushed by, and benifiting the Jews. There is actually some truth to this as these wars are being pushed by neo-con Jews, HOWEVER, it should be noted that NOT all Jews are in favor of the war.

    2) Stopping illegal immigration. Of course, it should be noted that Ron Paul does NOT want to go as far with this as David Duke does. David Duke wants to prevent all non-whites from entering the USA. Ron Paul has no such plan, he just wants to block the people who enter illegally and he also wants to cut off immigrant welfare handouts.

    3) Ron opposes Affirmative Action. I don’t consider opposing Affirmative Action to be racist, in fact, one could consider supporting Affirmative Action to be racist. David Duke opposes Affirmative Action because he doesn’t want non-whites to get jobs over whites. Whether or not David Duke would be in favor of Affirmative Action for whites I don’t know.

    There are probably a few other reasons, but the bottom line is that David Duke has different motivations than Ron Paul and that their views are not in line on every issue, and are in fact not even completely in line when it comes to the areas where they appear to have the same stance on an issue.

    I’d be willing to bet that David Duke would prefer somebody else for President that was more to his way of thinking, but he probably realizes that such a candidate would not be electable so he picks a candidate that supports issues that are at least somewhat in alignment with his views. Also, at this point it is not even clear that David Duke is actually endorsing Ron Paul as he just had an article about him on his website, this is not the same thing as an endorsement.

    I think that it is a pretty disgusting tactic on your part to try to lump Ron Paul in with David Duke in an attempt to slander Ron Paul.

  40. Andy Says:

    “Tom Bryant Says:

    May 1st, 2007 at 4:43 pm
    Outside of conspiracy/hardcore libertarian circles, very few people consider Griffin to be an expert on the subject. There is a reason for this, as his work has way too much conspiracy nonsense to be taken seriously. With such a groundbreaking masterpiece, you’d think that it would be required text for grad programs in economics/finance.”

    That book SHOULD be required reading in classes about economics, finance, history, political science, etc… The reason that it is not is because the people who have control over the education system don’t want a book like that to be a part of the curiculum. If too many people read that book they’ll lose their control.

    “You’re right that the FED has control over the money supply. That may or may not be a good thing, but the Constitution has given that power to the government, and, despite a few depressions, it has worked out well for the vast majority of Americans.”

    The Constitution does not grant the government any power to create fiat currency and to use it to replace gold & silver. Also, the Federal Reserve is a public-private partnership. There is no constitutional provision for this either.

    It also has not worked out well as the Fed caused The Great Depression and other recessions. The Fed has played a major role in getting the US into wars and it has also robbed the American people through the hidden tax called inflation.

    “Like the postal service, I believe that various functions of the FED would be better served by private corporations competing with each other. You can make a stronger argument for that than you can by going off on the NWO/Illumanati/shape-shifting reptile thing.”

    I’m not a fan of the Postal Service, but at least there is actually a constitutional basis for it unlike the Federal Reserve.

    Also, why do you bring up shape-shifting reptiles? G. Edward Griffin never talks about anything like that, and neither do I. You must have us confused with David Icke. People such as myself and G. Edward Griffin stick to things that can be proven. There is ample documentation for the New World Order and the Illuminati. I’ve never seen any documentation for shape shifting reptiles. When people such as yourself bring this up you do it as a smear tactic. Just because David Icke talks about this and also talks about the New World Order it does not mean that everyone else who talks about the New World Order agrees with David Icke on the exsistance of shape shifting reptiles. This is just as bad as GE acting like just because David Duke had an article about Ron Paul on his website that it automatically means that Ron Paul is a horrible racist and a David Duke supporter. That is non-sense and so is you insinuation that people such as myself and G. Edward Griffin must automatically agree with everything that David Icke says.

  41. globalist_elitist Says:

    Come on now, Andy. I’m not saying that Ron Paul is a racist. I’m saying that if David Duke supports him, that’s a reason to take pause. David Duke also supports Noam Chomsky, but I’m pretty sure Chomsky doesn’t support Duke. Then again, maybe Chomsky should reconsider his borderline anti-semtic rhetoric, since it is drawing flies. Paul is doing the same with his absurd monetary goals and his “9/11 Truth” movement support.

    I have read The Creature of Jeckyll Island too. It is all bullshit. Griffin isn’t even an economist. He’s just a lamebrain snake-oil salesmen shoveling shit into your willing and open mouth.

    You can say that the market would be better served by a “true” free market in currencies. I would disagree with you. But when you add the conspriacy theory B.S., it just becomes laughable.

    Look, capitalism is a system – it is not the lack of a system. Instead of filling your mind with horseshit, try reading Wealth of Nations. It prescribes the proper and necessary role of the capitalist defense, which is to provide a pro-growth infrastucture that includes not only courts and national defense, but also public education. “Coining money” is explicitly allowed by the Constittuion, and if you want to argue what that means, then I’m not interested. Clearly, it allows for monetary controls. HERE IS WHAT YOU GUYS DON’T UNDERSTAND: The Fed is a freer-market, smaller-government approach than what is ALLOWED by the Constitution. The Constitution would actually allow CONGRESS to control the money supply. Do you know how disasterous that would be?

  42. globalist_elitist Says:

    Trent – You’re in a state of denial. Nothing I’ve ever said about monetary policy, gold, or the Fed has been “proved wrong” even once, let alone 100 times. You uneducated rubes just throw up your hands and say, “that’s not what Alex Jones says!” and act like that’s good enough. It’s not.

  43. matt Says:

    Capitalism is a system, but it’s a system of spontaneous cooperation. There is an economic system that is planned out beforehand. It is called socialism. One has a better track record than the other.

  44. globalist_elitist Says:

    The “spontaneous coopreation” requires an infrastructure to exist.

    No courts = no capitalism.

    Are government-funded roads, access to public education, and a national defense “anti-capitalist” just because they are “planned” and not “spontaneous”?

    The Fed is a freer, less governement-intensive organ of monetary policy management than Congress would be. It is part of the pro-growth infrastructure.

    I am a market guy. 99.9% of the time, less government is good. 0.01% of the time, government can do what the private sector cannot due to what economists call “the freeloader effect.” This doesn’t even apply to the Fed, but denial of the freeloader effect’s reality is just more evidence that “libertarians” approach ecnomics as a religion, in which the prophets were Rand, Rothband, and Mises; instead of as the science that it is. Read Smith, Ricardo, and Mill. Hayek and Friedman are good too. Those other guys? Second-rate scholars and total jokers.

  45. globalist_elitist Says:

    By the way, Matt. You asked for my book about the Fed. Then you read my stockmarket book and said it was sweet. What bout my Fed book? Have you read it? Please do so before making more allegations about the validity of my arguments.

  46. Kn@ppster Says:

    Matt,

    You write:

    “Capitalism is a system, but it’s a system of spontaneous cooperation.”

    Um, no. The term “capitalism” was coined by Thackeray, and it denoted a “mixed, regulated industrial economy.” It was popularized by Marx to mean the same thing, and Marx placed it in his theory of history as that stage of economic development toward full state ownership of the means of production following the “archaic” socialisms (feudalism, guild socialism, etc.) and mercantilism, and preceding the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    Trying to associate free market/laissez-faire economics and the term “capitalism” has been a huge mistake from a PR standpoint. Free market advocates end up getting blamed for all of capitalism’s flaws and credited with none of its benefits … and they bring it on themselves with their expropriation of a term that has never meant, and will never mean, what they want it to mean.

  47. Jay Matthews Says:

    Hey Andy you are so right. It is astounding how despite all the lies, deception, and scandals to stem from this administration some people still desperately cling to the idea the public was given the truth about 9/11.

  48. matt Says:

    Knappster,
    You caught me. I did mean lassiez-faire.

    GE,
    I had read your Fed e-book. I liked it too, in that it is a good, detailed giude. It was informative and I’d reccomend it to anyone with questions about the loan market.

    My problem is with your presupposition that 70 years of success means permanent success. The Fed and the FHA helped people buy houses in record numbers. They have created a system of apparent security, but that security is based on the dollar being the world’s reserve currency, which is no longer the case. Without the Fed, we would have grown slower, smarter, and more safely.

  49. globalist_elitist Says:

    Matt – If we would have grown slower, then millions of us would still be in poverty. We would probably be shitting in buckets if not for the Fed and it’s “too-fast growth.” Growth solves problems. You think it causes them? Then you’re in the regressivist camp with the Greens and the CP and Bad Andy.

    Secondly, the dollar still is the world’s currency of choice. Just because China is diversifying its holdings doesn’t mean anything. It is mostly doing so in response to the trade hawks in D.C. The dollar is weak relative to the yuan because China has to hold U.S. dollars in its vaults in order for anyone to trust its currency. The U.S. dollar is the new gold standard, but unlike gold, we don’t have to sacrifice manpower and LIVES mining it.

    I do not believe that real growth at anything even remotely approaching what we’ve exprierenced since 1913 is possible without a fiat currency managed in SMALL PART by an arms-length government body like the Fed. Without fiat currency, deflation is almost inevitable. Hey, that idiot Lew Rockwell even admits this. He thinks a system where your currency goes up by simply sitting on your money is a good system! That’s how fucking clueless these Rothbardians are! They are completely anti-growth.

    BUT HEY - thanks for the kudos on my books.

    And Kn@pp – You are a true commie. You can’t even get through a quote without using the Marxist word “expropriate.” I’m joking, but let me ask you, who are some great lassiez-faire thinkers? By your definition, Adam Smith surely isn’t one. Ricardo? Nope. John Stuart Mill? Not even close. The Founding Fathers? Definitely not. So what you’re really talking about is a couple of racist nutjobs and Ayn Rand, who was not an economist or even a philosopher, but was basically a really cool dime-store novelist. I’ll take Smith, Ricardo, and Mill over your false gods any day.

  50. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 1st, 2007 at 6:30 pm
    Come on now, Andy. I’m not saying that Ron Paul is a racist. I’m saying that if David Duke supports him, that’s a reason to take pause. David Duke also supports Noam Chomsky, but I’m pretty sure Chomsky doesn’t support Duke. Then again, maybe Chomsky should reconsider his borderline anti-semtic rhetoric, since it is drawing flies. Paul is doing the same with his absurd monetary goals and his “9/11 Truth” movement support.”

    I’ve been reading your posts for quite a while and I’ve seen you call Ron Paul a “racist” on several occassions. Now you are denying it. This shows what little credibility you have.

    Also, why should anyone take pause just because David Duke supposedly supports (I say supposedly because there hasn’t been an official endorsement, and also because I’d be that if Duke did support him it would only be because no candidate that he would really support would be electable) Ron Paul? If the sun is shining and David Duke steps outside and says, “It’s sunny today.” should we all take pause just because David Duke said it?

    What absurd monetary goals are you talking about? The only absurd monetary goals are that a bunch of pieces of paper with weird symbols on them which are backed by nothing actaully represent growth. This is pure foolishness.

    Why is it absurd to question the official government story about 9/11? Do you believe everything the government tells you? Why don’t you tell us how WTC Building 7 collapsed into its own footprints when Building 7 was not even hit by a plane and was on the other side of the WTC complex from the Twin Towers? Why don’t you tell us why NORAD stood down? Why don’t you tell us why it is that there were so many put options purchased on the airlines that were allegedly hijacked, and why these put options were purchased through a bank that had been headed by the Executive Director of the CIA?

    Only a FOOL would believe the offical government fairy tale.

    “I have read The Creature of Jeckyll Island too. It is all bullshit. Griffin isn’t even an economist. He’s just a lamebrain snake-oil salesmen shoveling shit into your willing and open mouth.

    You can say that the market would be better served by a ‘true’ free market in currencies. I would disagree with you. But when you add the conspriacy theory B.S., it just becomes laughable.

    Look, capitalism is a system – it is not the lack of a system.”

    What you call capitalism is not free market and you are obviously not a libertarian.

    Murray Rothbard also opposed the Fed, as did any other true free market economist.

    I don’t know what “conspiracy theories” you are talking about. I don’t engage in theories, I engage in facts.

    “It prescribes the proper and necessary role of the capitalist defense, which is to provide a pro-growth infrastucture that includes not only courts and national defense, but also public education.”

    Public “education”. BAAAAHAHAHAHA! You mean government indoctrination centers. The public FOOL system is one of the worst things that ever happened in this country.

    “’Coining money’ is explicitly allowed by the Constittuion, and if you want to argue what that means, then I’m not interested.”

    Translation: I’m not interested in any facts, I just want to continue believing in my fairy tales, so please don’t bother me with facts.

    “Coining money” in the Constitution refered to GOLD & SILVER coins. People could bring their gold & silver to the government and it would be made into coins. The government would “regulate the weights and measures” of the coins, in other words making sure and an ounce of gold or an ounce of silver was really an ounce. The Constitution also says that “No state shall….accept anything but gold and silver as a payment for debts.” Notice that it doesn’t say anything about your paper “Monopoly money” with all of the weird symbols on it.

    “Clearly, it allows for monetary controls. HERE IS WHAT YOU GUYS DON’T UNDERSTAND: The Fed is a freer-market, smaller-government approach than what is ALLOWED by the Constitution. The Constitution would actually allow CONGRESS to control the money supply. Do you know how disasterous that would be?”

    This is laughable. You believe that the Morgans, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, etc… were (are) for a free market and small government. LOL!! This is why they funded communism. This is why they have been behind the explosive growth in government. BAAAAHAHAHAHA!!

  51. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 1st, 2007 at 6:31 pm
    Trent – You’re in a state of denial. Nothing I’ve ever said about monetary policy, gold, or the Fed has been “proved wrong” even once, let alone 100 times. You uneducated rubes just throw up your hands and say, “that’s not what Alex Jones says!” and act like that’s good enough. It’s not.”

    History has proven that you are wrong time and time again. The reality of the situation that we live in proves that you are wrong.

    Why do you pretend to be a libertarian when it is clearly apparent that you are not? I hope that you aren’t a Libertarian Party member. If you are, I’d send you your membership dues back.

  52. Andy Says:

    “Are government-funded roads, access to public education, and a national defense “anti-capitalist” just because they are “planned” and not “spontaneous”?”

    Public “education” is a complete waste of time. National “defense” sounds nice, but unfortunately it always ends up being turned into national offense. Those big bankers that you worship make a lot of money off of the military-industrial-complex and imperialist wars.

    “The Fed is a freer, less governement-intensive organ of monetary policy management than Congress would be. It is part of the pro-growth infrastructure.”

    Why should either have any control over money?

    “I am a market guy. 99.9% of the time, less government is good.”

    This is obviously not true given your comments here. You are an economic fasicst that combines leftist and libertine social views. You obviously worship the so called “elite” and you like to pretend that you are one of them. In reality, you are jack shit.

  53. Andy Says:

    “GE,
    I had read your Fed e-book. I liked it too, in that it is a good, detailed giude. It was informative and I’d reccomend it to anyone with questions about the loan market.”

    So let me guess, GE makes his living by brokering loans which are created out of thin air. NICE SCAM! No wonder he goes to great lengths to protect this fraud.

  54. Andy Says:

    “The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependant
    on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”—Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

    “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws”—Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

  55. Andy Says:

    Here’s how the bankers that GE worships funded the communist.

    Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
    http://www.amazon.com/Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Antony-Sutton/dp/089968324X

  56. Tom Bryant Says:

    Andy writes: “That book SHOULD be required reading in classes about economics, finance, history, political science, etc… The reason that it is not is because the people who have control over the education system don’t want a book like that to be a part of the curiculum. If too many people read that book they’ll lose their control.”

    When a conspiracy does not have support, the obvious answer is that it is an even bigger conspiracy. The problem with real conspiracies is that the larger they become, the more likely they are to fall apart. When you find yourself expanding the size and scope of a conspiracy, the odds are that you are wrong.

    Andy also writes: “People such as myself and G. Edward Griffin stick to things that can be proven.”

    Herein lies the bigger problem. You have couplied your belief of this vast conspiracy with delusions. You may be convinced, but when you start believing that your conviction is proof, you’ve strayed to a dangerous mental territory. Your proof consists of any source that agrees with you, and any source that does not agree with you therefore must be part of the vast conspiracy. For example, you believe that the FED starts wars. With no military, how the heck can they start wars? (This is where the conspiracy gets even larger, as the bankers now must have control of the Pentagon, DoD, etc).

    As GE pointed out, the Constitution gives Congress the ability to coin money. If there is a disagreement about what that phrase means, the courts have to settle it. That’s how our system works.

    I agree with GE that Congressmen making the decisions on our money supply would be disasterous. Just like it would be disasterous if our Congressmen had to deliver the mail! Instead of doing it all themselves, they’ve made laws that create organizations that can serve the function better than doing it themselves. When the Constitution gives Congress authority, it also gives them the power to delegate the task to other people.

    The FED was not the sole cause of the Great Depression. There were many causes, the FED being just one, albeit important, contributor. Without the FED, the Great Depression may have been better, or it may have been worse. Mistakes were clearly made by the FED, but we don’t know what the alternative would be.

  57. Tom Bryant Says:

    Andy writes:

    ““Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws”—Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild”

    Can you provide the citation and full context of the above quote? I’m guessing that you can’t.

  58. globalist_elitist Says:

    The Great Depression was caused by protectionism and tax increases. It was exacerbated by rampant stock speculation, and worse yet, by strict adherence to the gold standard. The only thing the Fed could have done to minimize it would have been to raise interest rates earlier to choke off the speculation, but it still would have happened thanks to Smoot-Hawley and Hoover’s tax hikes. Also, the margin rate was much too low in the 1920s, and this played a role too. Securities fraud played a role too. That’s why the SEC is one of those rare government enttities that is actually worth existing.

    Andy – I don’t “pretend to be” part of the elite. I am not. I aspire to be. And I’m confident that I will be. Why? Becuase I work hard and I think. I don’t complain about B.S. conspiracies when I’m living in the only country in the world where I can create whatever I want to create. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates didn’t sit around complaining about the Fed. Neither did Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Neither did the 367 other U.S. billionares.

    I do not broker loans. I used to sell stocks. Now I see information. And, just so you know, I just ptiched a business plan and attracted outside investment to form a new corporation. We can create our own liberty, Andy.

    If I ever said Ron Paul was a racist, I was just being a dick. I don’t recall ever doing so, but I’m not denying that I might have just to get under your skin.

    And while I am still a member of the Libertarian Party, I will not be renewing my membership when it expires. I joined because the party markets itself as the party of small businessmen and capitalists; the party of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. It is not. It is the party for CPers who can’t give up anal sex.

  59. Kn@ppster Says:

    GE,

    You write:

    “And Kn@pp – You are a true commie. You can’t even get through a quote without using the Marxist word ‘expropriate.’ I’m joking”

    So was I—I decided to use the word “expropriate” for exactly the reason that you noticed it ;-)

    “but let me ask you, who are some great lassiez-faire thinkers? By your definition, Adam Smith surely isn’t one. Ricardo? Nope. John Stuart Mill? Not even close. The Founding Fathers? Definitely not. So what you’re really talking about is a couple of racist nutjobs and Ayn Rand, who was not an economist or even a philosopher, but was basically a really cool dime-store novelist. I’ll take Smith, Ricardo, and Mill over your false gods any day.”

    Actually, Ayn Rand was one of the worst abusers of the word “capitalism.” She preached laissez-faire, but insisted on labeling it with a word that was coined to describe precisely the “mixed economy” that she rejected.

    In any case, you’re missing the point. I’m not necessarily Smith, Ricardo, Mill et al. All I’m saying is that the word “capitalism” means something, and that the something it means, from its very origin and through its popularization by none other than The Great Bogeyman Karl Marx, is not a free market system, but rather a state-regulated industrial economy. When free market advocates refer to the system they advocate as “capitalism,” they have nothing to whine about when their opponents take them at their word and assume that what is being discussed is capitalism.

  60. Tom Bryant Says:

    GE,

    Concerning your LP membership, I feel I should make a few points.

    There are some conspiracy folks like Andy in the party, but in my experience they tend to only be vocal on the internet. There are probably a few conspiracy folks on county leadership boards, and maybe some on state. At National, I think the conspiracy nuts have been pretty much filtered out. The reason why they are around is because people such as yourself leave the party – leaving the remainder of the LP with choosing either a conspiracy guy to handle a task, or leaving the task undone. I highly doubt you joined the LP with the notion that it will be successful anyday now, but rather you probably joined with the knowledge that it would work to get the party going. This is one of the most important things that need to be done – getting the right people in the right position.

    Secondly, the people who successfully run for office tend to know better than to get mixed up in the conspiracy stuff. There is probably a lot of opportunity for you to get involved in the real work (albeit there isn’t that much because of a lack of real campaigns).

    My impression of you is that you’re an “Internet LPer”. Not too active within the party, but very active on libertarian blogs. This will lead you run into many more conspiracy nuts than if you worked on successful local campaigns.

    In my county, we had an Alex Jones guy attend two or three of our meetings. Our county does a lot of political work: we attend city and county meetings and report on them, have letter writing campaigns, and elect people to city councils. This type of activity bored the Alex Jones dude, who wanted to talk conspiracies. He stopped attending because we created a climate of political activitiy, not government conspiracy trading.

    If you’re more than just an internet libertarian, I urge you to do the same thing in your county. Get active to the point that conspiracy nuts won’t attend.

  61. globalist_elitist Says:

    Well, Tom, since you asked: I am actually a former leftist. I was very active within the Green Party; I even ran for office in 2004, and served as an officer in 2005. I was young at the time (25/26) and I thought I knew it all. It was actually a Badnarik debate performance that caused me to challenge my beliefs. The Greens talked about non-violence, but what would happen in a “Green utopia” when someone didn’t want to pay the massive taxes to fund their bueracracy?

    In 2005, I re-enrolled in business school and I slowly became much more pro-capitalist and pro-growth. The whole immigration issue was bubbling at the time, and I saw the fact that immigrants wanted to come here to work, and people wanted to deny them the ability to come here to do that. They wanted to insulate and inflate their own wages, effectively making me subsidize them by paying a higher price for products and services than I would if we had more open immigration and free trade. Thus, immigration was both a human rights and economic issue to me. The anti-capitalist/pro-immigration stand made no sense to me; nor did the supposedly pro-capitalist/anti-immigration stance of the GOP. Which was the party of pro-capitalism AND pro-immigration? At the time it was the LP. I was already drifting in that direction, but immigration was the straw that broke the camel’s back and made me into an LP supporter.

    I joined the LP and attended a the state membership meeting in 2006. Several of the LPMI people knew me from my Green days. I was more than an internet figure to them. I didn’t get a “conspiracy” vibe, but I did get a very conservative vibe from them. I don’t agree with the fact that they really focused on the affirmative action issue and aligned themselves with some unsavory groups in doing so. I am against racial prefrence, but when you make that the defining issue, it ironically makes you look like a racist (rightly or wrongly).

    I moved to my new area in June of ‘06. I was on the Tri-City LP mailing list, and it was very right-wing and anti-immigrant. That was the main topic of conversation. That’s why I didn’t want to be involved with the state LP. They emphasize issues that make them look right wing, and downplay issues that I feel are more important.

    I think the activity you talk about with your own county chapter is great. I used to attend city council meetings in my old town, and occassionally, I’d even raise some hell. But I’m an “internet libertarian” not because of people like Andy, but due to the fact that I don’t agree with my state party’s politics.

  62. globalist_elitist Says:

    Knap – A “free market” like you desire is as an impossible of a utopia as communism.

    I’m with Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill. I believe in pro-growth liberalism. I define that as a largely free market supported by an infrastructure that encourages growth. Growth is the solution to damn near any problem you can think of. And as these anti-Fed guys are admitting, growth would be slower (and “safer,” GAG) without it.

  63. matt Says:

    GE,
    The problem with making growth the sole yardstick for economic success is that doing so obscures a lot of different things that might be going on in the economy.

    For example, Zimbabwe is experiencing ‘growth’ as we speak.Their stock market, for example, shows record highs, but the newly printed fiat currency is almost entirely worthless. Certainly their situation and ours are different, and I’m not saying we’re headed there economically, but the point remains: when we set up an agency to determine how to reach optimal levels of growth, inflation, and liquidity, we are ignoring the elephant in the room.

    The elephantine question is this: optimal levels for whom? Optimal levels for bankers and investors? Optimal levels for small businessmen who have all their excess money in savings accounts? It isn’t mentioned. A government agency takes sides. They produce something that pleases the people who have their hands on the gears of economic power. Some good things result. Indicators are developed to accentuate the positive. Then we are blindided by out-of control inflation or some other problem. We can’t eat economic indicators of growth, nor will said indicators fuel our engines or keep the rain off our heads.

  64. matt Says:

    “Knap – A “free market” like you desire is as an impossible of a utopia as communism.”

    Communism has been tried. An entirely free market has not. Systems tend to fail in direct proportion to how closely they mirror unreformed soviet communism. Systems tend to succeed in proportion to how closely they mirror 100% governmental non-intervention.

  65. Tom Bryant Says:

    GE,

    I’m very active in the Michigan LP, would I know you by name?

    There is a convention coming up this weekend, and it is very likely that leadership is changing drastically. The last two years we have not had decent leadership, most of the members of the executive committee were talked into running – meaning they had no real desire.

    The Michigan LP is run by less than ten people, because no one else wants to get involved. It is not hard at all to change the direction that the Michigan LP is going.

    Roll up your sleeves and get to work GE!

  66. globalist_elitist Says:

    Zimbabwe? Come on, now. I’m talking about NON-INFLATIONARY GROWTH. Look around you. I know nothing of your living situation, but I can almost guarantee you that you are living at a standard that was unavailable to even the richest man in the world 30 years ago. Growth lifts people out of poverty. What’s happening in Zimbawe is not growth. Come on!

    Optiumal levels for whom? Ultimately, there are no losers in a pro-growth economy. The only people who perceive themselves to be losers in the short run are 1) the idle elites at the top – they lose comparative wealth as entrepreneurs and “new money” make their way to the top; and 2) People dedictated to outmoded means of production; i.e. American farmers and factory workers who want you and me to subsidized them at higher wages than the market produces. IN THE LONG RUN, everyone wins. A 17th century Duke might lose, but his heirs get the internet, air conditioning, and indoor plumbing.

    Jeez, Matt. I thought you were for wealth creation, prosperity, and abundance.

  67. globalist_elitist Says:

    Tom – I don’t like my name coming up in searches since some (most!) of the things I say here could hurt me professionally, but the link below is a candidate profile from CNN.

    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/MI/H/07/143027/content.html

    The email address on that page is inactive. But you can reach me at my full name @gmail.com.

    A few MILP members that I know at least moderately well are Nathan Allen, Kenneth Proctor, and James from Hillsdale (don’t remember his last name).

  68. Juan Carlos Cruz Guzman Says:

    You are all a bunch of stupid people ! The next stage in human evolution is socialism, not capitalism. Ron Paul, will not fix the USA because he is capitalist, with a capitalist framework. Only socialism can save us from the fascist hole

  69. Jon P Says:

    Thank you, globalist_elitist for posting your book.

    I find that many of the charges being leveled against the existence of the Feds make sense, and also believe that the national debt is indeed at truly alarming levels and that fiat money makes it very politically expedient for such a state of affairs to occur.

    Still, I am very grateful for what seems like a balanced and thoughtful countervailing view and have actually been waiting for such for a long long time.

    People should also try and visit the ff. site:

    http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/FedReserveFacts.html

    We cannot allow conspiracy theorists to be the only side supplying ‘facts’ and end up hijacking our critical thinking. People who hear both sides of the debate tend to make better decisions (if they don’t get the heck confused out of them first, that is… :-D )

  70. Jon P Says:

    By the way, would someone please explain what is so bad about DEFLATION and why it would necessarily lead to a recession or depression ?

    I have been reading tons of stuff related to monetary policy and doctrines and it seems that the optimal state of affairs is actually right down the middle: zero inflation and zero deflation, with a small percentage in either direction not being something to worry about.

    Certainly deflation or low inflation encourages savings and it took Keynesian brainwashing to make us believe this is a bad thing.

  71. Jon P Says:

    “And while I am still a member of the Libertarian Party, I will not be renewing my membership when it expires. I joined because the party markets itself as the party of small businessmen and capitalists; the party of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. It is not. It is the party for CPers who can’t give up anal sex.”

    Saying that XXXXX is the party of “small businessmen” is a paradox. At what point does a “small” business become “big” and why should government treat “big” business different from “small” business? I’m not saying it shouldn’t because a bit of exposure to the socialist perspective is healthy. However, making this distinction seems to run very contrary to the principles of classical liberal economics.

    I submit that the distinction is made only for political purposes because there are more people who see themselves as “small” businessmen rather than big.

  72. Jon P Says:

    From the book: “if borrowers expect deflation, they will be unwilling to pay high interest rates. Interest rates in Japan were essentially zero for over a decade due to expectations of deflation. How can a mortgage lender make money in this type of environment?”

    Well this sound like a spurious argument. A mortgage lender still “makes money” at 0% interest in the case of deflation because the money’s purchasing power will rise over time.

  73. Galileo Says:

    Great logic here….

    Ron Paul is at 2% in the polls.

    The 9/11 Truth movement is at 36% in the polls.

    So what should the guy with 2% backing do???

    Avoid the group that’s at 36%!

    Sheer brilliance.

  74. charles walker Says:

    ron paul is the ONLY candidate that has enough intelligence to run this country. hillary is a waco personified and the rest comes awfully close.

  75. andreas04: close to attraction Says:

    [...] Much is the case of Ron Paul.  I have nothing but respect and admiration for Dr. Paul but his fans, not high ranking LP officials, but the others, really annoy the living f*($ out of me.   Do we know where I am going here?  Yeah, those of you who catch the meta jokes about Mexicans, Johnny Marr and alienated youth.  First, as Little Joey from Third Party Watch said, “There’s not a single 9/11 conspiracy theory that will help Ron Paul.” For the rest of you, cool it.   As my frenemy Scratch would say, “The Man is not going to let Ron Paul win anything. The Man is real and He’s got his foot on your neck.” [...]

  76. Gay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex Says:

    Gay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex

    I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Leave a Reply