Interesting Ron Paul Newsletter Excerpts

[70Chip]

It's hard for people who are new to the political process to understand that Ron Paul comes from a long and distinguished tradition of extreme nutbaggery. These are the people who think that The Trilateral Comission, The Council on Foreign Relations, and Colonel Sanders are controlling the world. They won't invest in the stock market or put their money in banks because (they believe) the banks are run by Jews. They buy gold instead. He's basically Dale Gribble with a lot of appealing catch phrases.

Most of the press understands this but they find him amusing so they won't completely torpedo him. Either that or they're hoping he will be a more prominent factor in the process say at the Republican Convention and they can torpedo him then when it can do more damage to the GOP. (I'm not completely immune from the conspiracy temptation myself)

For some background on the paranoid conspiracy strain in American politics, check out:

Charles Coughlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Birch Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also:

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

What does "he stands for the Constitution" mean? I've heard him talk in platitudes that appeal to the masses, but he rarely talks about what his general philosophy will mean in terms of concrete change.

He has all but come out and explicitly said he'd like to get rid of all federal agencies except for the DoD and DoJ. So there goes the CIA and Department of Homeland Security. Does that mean that all intelligence activities taking place outside of the DoD cease to exist? Even though the CIA and DHS have serious flaws, he basically wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater. He wants to get rid of the IRS. That's nice, I hate paying taxes too, but I shudder to think what will happen to our economy when huge sectors of the workforce (e.g., tax preparers and tax attorneys) hit the unemployment line. He would get rid of the FAA. That's nice, I personally don't care if airline safety is totally unregulated. He would get rid of the SEC. That's also nice, who cares if corporations can solicit investments without adequate disclosure and thereby defraud investors.

Simple phrases like, "our government is too big," "taxes suck," "the war is bad," might resonate with a lot of people. I don't like big government, I don't like taxes, and I don't like war. But serious matters call for serious talk, not pscyho babble that reduces complex problems to one-liners.

"Standing for the Constitution" means that he respects it, and honors it. He believes in its importance. The Constitution is a measure to ensure the Federal government doesn't get out of control. Yet, the Federal government has abused, and outright ignored the Constitution. We seem to be headed down a slippery slope. That scares me.

I don't rely on the President to have all the answers. Just because he doesn't have a concrete plan doesn't bother me at all. He knows what he wants to do, and he'll figure the best way to do it once he's in office and has his cabinet to advise him.

In my eyes, the President is supposed to be a leader and a thinker -- not an oracle.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

It's hard for people who are new to the political process to understand that Ron Paul comes from a long and distinguished tradition of extreme nutbaggery. These are the people who think that The Trilateral Comission, The Council on Foreign Relations, and Colonel Sanders are controlling the world. They won't invest in the stock market or put their money in banks because (they believe) the banks are run by Jews. They buy gold instead. He's basically Dale Gribble with a lot of appealing catch phrases.

Most of the press understands this but they find him amusing so they won't completely torpedo him. Either that or they're hoping he will be a more prominent factor in the process say at the Republican Convention and they can torpedo him then when it can do more damage to the GOP.

For some background on the paranoid conspiracy strain in American politics, check out:

Charles Coughlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Birch Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also:

70, did you catch the debate last night? It's not so much that he has these extreme views, but he's so eager to be right about the war and how wrong it was. For instance, the Fox moderater asked him something about the scirmish the U.S. had with the small Iranian boats last week, amd Paul got all tangled up talking about Iraq and Bush and this and that. It was just uncomfortable watching it all.

[dmek25]

12th, i saw it. and im still trying to figure out how Ron Paul isn't certifiably insane. the scary part is there are alot of people out there that would vote for him

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

It's hard for people who are new to the political process to understand that Ron Paul comes from a long and distinguished tradition of extreme nutbaggery. These are the people who think that The Trilateral Comission, The Council on Foreign Relations, and Colonel Sanders are controlling the world. They won't invest in the stock market or put their money in banks because (they believe) the banks are run by Jews. They buy gold instead. He's basically Dale Gribble with a lot of appealing catch phrases.

Most of the press understands this but they find him amusing so they won't completely torpedo him. Either that or they're hoping he will be a more prominent factor in the process say at the Republican Convention and they can torpedo him then when it can do more damage to the GOP. (I'm not completely immune from the conspiracy temptation myself)

For some background on the paranoid conspiracy strain in American politics, check out:

Charles Coughlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Birch Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like I said before, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter and am currently undecided. End disclaimer.

It seems, though, that you are arguing that he shouldn't be listened to because he's an extremist. I'm all for denouncing ideas that won't work and aren't practical, but dismissing something because it's extreme is pretty poor reasoning.

$9 trillion in national debt is an extreme problem and a fact. That requires an extreme solution.

This country was founded on extremism. It wasn't really mainstream, conventional wisdom to take on the ruling government and pick a fight with a dog ten times your size. Pretty extreme if you ask me.

If the guy's ideas won't work then say why, dismissing them because they are extreme isn't really productive.

SGG put it very well. I personally like Paul's ideas and desire to fix the real problems with the government, I just fail to see how they can really be carried out.

I think a Flat Tax is a fantastic idea and ditching the IRS would get rid of one of the most inefficient, screwed up agencies in existence. Like SGG said, what happens to all the people employed there? Just kick them out on the street?

I think you'd have to privatize a lot of the government entities and essentially transfer the employees - create new jobs rather than just eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs and hope people land on their feet.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by dmek25

12th, i saw it. and im still trying to figure out how Ron Paul isn't certifiably insane. the scary part is there are alot of people out there that would vote for him

What is starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth is that the media is trying to make a mockery of all of this. I think Paul has a hand in all of it too, but it seems they're becoming more and more interested in the debates becoming a circus.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

70, did you catch the debate last night? It's not so much that he has these extreme views, but he's so eager to be right about the war and how wrong it was. For instance, the Fox moderater asked him something about the scirmish the U.S. had with the small Iranian boats last week, amd Paul got all tangled up talking about Iraq and Bush and this and that. It was just uncomfortable watching it all.

Yeah. Its especially painful to watch when you consider how hard it was to push these people out of the Republican Party over the last 40 years. Then this guy rears his ugly head and manages to gain a good deal of momentum. Its infuriating. I think it's a Democratic year anyway so I would actually be thrilled if Paul ran as an Independent. Then we Republicans would be free of him and his ilk in the same way we are free of Patrick Buchanan who holds some of the same views. I know Pat is oppossed to the war for the same reason Paul is and believe me, the constitution doesn't have anything to do with it.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Yeah. Its especially painful to watch when you consider how hard it was to push these people out of the Republican Party over the last 40 years. Then this guy rears his ugly head and manages to gain a good deal of momentum. Its infuriating. I think it's a Democratic year anyway so I would actually be thrilled if Paul ran as an Independent. Then we Republicans would be free of him and his ilk in the same way we are free of Patrick Buchanan who holds some of the same views. I know Pat is oppossed to the war for the same reason Paul is and believe me, the constitution doesn't have anything to do with it.

Well, I don't know about that. Paul has quite a following and I would imagine many of them, even if they're not from that generation you speak of, are politically engaged and will somehow, someday find themselves in a public office one day. Perhaps Congress.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

"Standing for the Constitution" means that he respects it, and honors it. He believes in its importance. The Constitution is a measure to ensure the Federal government doesn't get out of control. Yet, the Federal government has abused, and outright ignored the Constitution. We seem to be headed down a slippery slope. That scares me.

I don't rely on the President to have all the answers. Just because he doesn't have a concrete plan doesn't bother me at all. He knows what he wants to do, and he'll figure the best way to do it once he's in office and has his cabinet to advise him.

In my eyes, the President is supposed to be a leader and a thinker -- not an oracle.

All Presidential candidates say that they respect and honor the Constitution. The important question, however, is not whether someone claims to respect the Constitution, it's what concete steps they would take to honor it.

IMO, Ron Paul does not know what the Constitution means or how to interpret it. Based on his public comments, Ron Paul seems to think that one "interprets" the Constitution simply by reading it and applying it literally. That approach to interpreting the Constitution sounds easy and appealing, but is astonishingly naive. Does the 1st Amendment guarantee everyone the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right to bear all arms, nuclear or conventional? What does "unreasonable" mean in the phrase "unreasonable search and seizure?" Ron Paul's world is one of black/white when, in reality, the world in grey. Either he is too dumb to realize as much, or he thinks that we will buy into simple catchphrases lacking in substance like "We need to protect free speech."

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

All Presidential candidates say that they respect and honor the Constitution. The important question, however, is not whether someone claims to respect the Constitution, it's what concete steps they would take to honor it.

IMO, Ron Paul does not know what the Constitution means or how to interpret it. Based on his public comments, Ron Paul seems to think that one "interprets" the Constitution simply by reading it and applying it literally. That approach to interpreting the Constitution sounds easy and appealing, but is astonishingly naive. Does the 1st Amendment guarantee everyone the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right to bear all arms, nuclear or conventional? What does "unreasonable" mean in the phrase "unreasonable search and seizure?" Ron Paul's world is one of black/white when, in reality, the world in grey. Either he is too dumb to realize as much, or he thinks that we will buy into simple catchphrases lacking in substance like "We need to protect free speech."

In a nutshell, the guy lacks balance.