Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Andrew Sullivan Comes to Ron Paul's Defense
Speak it, Brother Sullivan. (From Andrew Sullivan's Atlantic blog):
The condescension to and mockery of the sole Republican candidate who seems to care about individual liberty has begun to tick me off. Chris Matthews can be heard groaning "Oh, God," after Paul spoke of the "original intent" of the Founders with respect to the Constitution. And in the YouTube clip below, Rudy Giuliani actually seems to be guffawing after Paul's defense of habeas corpus. I'm glad Paul's supporters are fighting back on the web. He deserves more respect than he has gotten thus far, not least because compared to the pandering of his competitors, Paul actually seems to believe what he says. And what he says has more to do with conservatism than the crap the rest of them are peddling.
CLS|5.14.07 @ 8:34PM|#
It is rather a shock to have Andrew Sullivan playing up someone like that. Normally he reserves his most vibrant attempts at promotion for himself.
Mike Laursen|5.14.07 @ 8:37PM|#
I'm not a Giuliani fan, but in fairness, he may have simply been
laughing out of nervous relief because the debate was ending.
I didn't hear the Chris Matthews groan, but I'll take others word
that he did.
|5.14.07 @ 8:56PM|#
Andrew Sullivan is not a libertarian nor a conservative. He is
demented from AIDS.
He is for gun control and he is laying the ground work to endorse a
Democrat in 2008 and he is trying to make it look like he is
tormented when he has already made up his sick mind.
The guy endorsed Kerry and he has never explained why he endorsed
Kerry when Kerry never released all his military records and lack
of honest was one for the reasons Andrew was not supporting
Bush.
It is also an indicator that Andrew is dementied.
LOL|5.14.07 @ 8:59PM|#
Ron Paul deserves--and gets--as much respect as any other fanatic with a couple of idees fixes. But he'll always be world famous on mind-numbingly silly blogs like this one. The "marxists of the right" will never get even as far as the commies did in electoral politics. You guys are good for a laugh, and that's about it.
|5.14.07 @ 9:26PM|#
Oh my god, yet another idiot who thinks the original radical left-wingers are right-wing extremists.
Jesse Walker|5.14.07 @ 9:31PM|#
"LOL" wrote:
The "marxists of the right" will never get even as far as the
commies did in electoral politics. You guys are good for a laugh,
and that's about it.
Interestingly, the same commenter, under the name "Baily," has
lately taken to this site to promote the ideas of eugenics.
Presumably he thinks that crank cause is a big political
winner.
|5.14.07 @ 9:32PM|#
LOL: What? Please fix your first sentence. What is an "idees
fixes"? And how can he be world famous on a blog?
You trolls don't even try anymore.
|5.14.07 @ 9:33PM|#
LOL,
You should take a look at your own electoral dysfunction,
attributable to President Bush siding with the minority of the
people against the majority position against the war (a majority
position supported by Ron Paul).
You should also take a look at your "ex"-Marxist ally, Christopher
Hitchens, a big supporter of President Bush's war who said the
following about his former political idol, Leon Trotsky:
"The figure of Trotsky himself, as leader of the 'Left Opposition'
to Stalin, has many deformities. But I still think he comes out of
the twentieth century as a great figure of courageous and engaged
dissent, and of the fusion of intellect and action." (see FrontPage
magazine interview with Hitch)
Once you've taken enough pills to remedy your electoral
dysfunction, you can start talking about valid political
strategies.
|5.14.07 @ 9:55PM|#
"Rudy Giuliani actually seems to be guffawing after Paul's
defense of habeas corpus."
Why does this not surprise me?
|5.14.07 @ 10:01PM|#
Uh, that was more of a slight chuckle than a guffaw. And it
didn't begin right after Paul finished, it began while Chris
Matthews was saying, "This is hardly the end of the campaign...",
so he was probably smiling at that.
God knows there are plenty of real reasons to hate on Rudy. Let's
not jump on 'fake but accurate' ones like this.
|5.14.07 @ 10:03PM|#
@Jesse Walker
Interestingly, the same commenter, under the name "Baily," has
lately taken to this site to promote the ideas of eugenics.
Presumably he thinks that crank cause is a big political
winner.
Given our current political climate, I glumly have to concede he
may not be too far out of the ballpark on that one. But where does
he do that? I don't read all the threads, but I haven't seen
anything about it on the ones that I have.
|5.14.07 @ 10:05PM|#
My idée fixe is that people stop crapping on my freedoms. If I'm so wrong and out of touch, how come we still have that Constitution thing? Go ahead, get rid of it. I think you'll find that Americans aren't quite so nonlibertarian as you'd like to think.
|5.14.07 @ 10:14PM|#
"God knows there are plenty of real reasons to hate on Rudy.
Let's not jump on 'fake but accurate' ones like this."
A breach of "debate etiquette" by Candidate Giuliani is not what
bothers me; what bothers me is my suspicion that President Giuliani
would not hesitate for a second to suspend Habeas Corpus, if he
believed it to be advantageous to him.
|5.14.07 @ 10:19PM|#
P Brooks,
I have no doubt that you are correct about Rudy's lack of concern
for the quaint customs in the Bill of Rights, such as habeas
corpus. Let's call him on it, but let's do it right.
|5.14.07 @ 10:21PM|#
I think you'll find that Americans aren't quite so
nonlibertarian as you'd like to think.
I used to think that. Go watch the 'contestants' on Judge Judy or
Judge Joe Brown suing each other over $4,000 dollar cell phone
bills. Thats the real America in 2007.
|5.14.07 @ 10:22PM|#
76 - I blame the Lonewacko; he's so overwhelming that no quality trolls are willing to challenge for his territory any more. Do you think we could suspend our principled opposition to anti-trust regulations just this one time?
|5.14.07 @ 10:35PM|#
This is sort of like Southern Poverty Law Center coming out with a press release stating 2+2=4, while correct, the source makes you cringe.
|5.14.07 @ 10:49PM|#
Ron Paul is, unfortunately, a gold bug, which is pretty much a
sign of over-fruitiness in my estimation. He's pretty good on just
about everything else tho.
"Terry:The guy endorsed Kerry and he has never explained why he
endorsed Kerry when Kerry never released all his military records
and lack of honest was one for the reasons Andrew was not
supporting Bush. It is also an indicator that Andrew is
dementied."
You might not have AIDS, but I don't know if anyone can compare to
you in the demented category. Breathless run on sentences like this
are definitely a bad way to demonstrate that you AREN'T all hyped
up on crack.
Asharak|5.14.07 @ 10:58PM|#
When even Andrew Sullivan is a voice of reason, you know things are worse than we thought.
|5.14.07 @ 11:00PM|#
If the congresscritturs do not repudiate the signings to the
Defence Authorization Act and Military Commissons one, from last
October 17, you can bet real money on the next president using
those inherited powers.
If there IS a next president ...
|5.14.07 @ 11:13PM|#
Plunge,
I work. I didn't have time to edit that one.
And if you ever held a job, you would understand.
Go get one dip.
highnumber|5.14.07 @ 11:26PM|#
Terry,
Maybe it's time for...
...the Libertarian Militia!
(Everyone, costume them in your own mind. Some of you will choose
minuteman dress, others modern camo, and still others will choose
Star Trek outfits. Any way you garb them, aren't they cute? I mean
threatening. Aren't they threatening?)
|5.14.07 @ 11:30PM|#
I blame the Lonewacko; he's so overwhelming that no quality
trolls are willing to challenge for his territory any
more.
That's because he's a serious researcher. You should see his work
on the serving temperature of Boston Market's cornbread.
Paul|5.14.07 @ 11:31PM|#
Chris Matthews can be heard groaning "Oh, God," after Paul
spoke of the "original intent" of the Founders with respect to the
Constitution. And in the YouTube clip below, Rudy Giuliani actually
seems to be guffawing after Paul's defense of habeas
corpus.
It's over. We're Europe, get over it.
|5.14.07 @ 11:33PM|#
Some of you will choose minuteman dress, others modern camo,
and still others will choose Star Trek outfits.
For some reason, I just keep seeing clown suits. Is that wrong?
|5.14.07 @ 11:35PM|#
Actually, I see some certain unnamed libertarians in bikinis, but let's not go there.
|5.15.07 @ 12:02AM|#
I think the thing that sets Ron Paul apart from all other politicians more than anything else, is his record over years of service, always voting according to principal never wavering for political expediency. Few are the politicians of our time, that can even articulate a coherent guiding principal, and none ohters whom can claim fidelity to one.
|5.15.07 @ 12:15AM|#
Warren: Why should we be proud that Ron Paul is listening to some head high school administrator? Wouldn't we rather that he stuck with a guiding philosophy and developed positions from its underlying tenets?
|5.15.07 @ 12:28AM|#
jb,
Um yeah, ha, good one.
Here's one of my principles. If a typo makes it past the spell
checker, and the meaning is clear, then screw it. One of my pet
peeves are comments made solely to substitute an 'e' for an 'a' in
the previous comment. I don't know why it bothers me so. It just
seems so unnecessary and pedantic.
Not that I'm above a little pedantism myself. And there are those
who find me entirely unnecessary.
But typo correcting comments, the annoy me no end. As for comments
making fun of someone else's typos; Meh, if they're clever they're
good for a giggle.
|5.15.07 @ 12:37AM|#
Nothing wrong with being a gold bug. Mom left me about 25
thousand, and I put a few thousand of my own savings with it and
bought some gold, purely because I was too stupid to invest it
"properly" in stocks, too hacked off at my bank to trust a savings
account, and too scared I'd bet on the wrong stocks and lose
everything.
Four or five years later, some loony runs me off the road, and I
cash out some gold to buy an inexpensive new car, and realize what
I have left is more (in dollars) than what I put in in the first
place.
Hooray for gold.
edna|5.15.07 @ 12:41AM|#
"Not that I'm above a little pedantism myself."
that's sick. leave kids alone, you pervert!
|5.15.07 @ 12:55AM|#
I was going to correct Warren that it would be "pedantry" rather
than "pedantism" (which sounds vaugely pentacostal), but I realized
it would be entirely too pedantic to do so.
Didn't I?
Mike Laursen|5.15.07 @ 1:49AM|#
Go watch the 'contestants' on Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown
suing each other over $4,000 dollar cell phone bills. Thats the
real America in 2007.
If the folks on Judge Judy are the "real America", we should all
just off ourselves right now.
The Saipan Blogger|5.15.07 @ 4:33AM|#
I'm intrigued by Ron Paul because of his massive Internet
support. How the hell did he do that? He's not even young. He's
really old. How did he decide that he'd be the netroots
candidate?
My question for all of you is, what are McCain/Romney/Giuliani
supporters saying about Paul's support?
I can't find too much negative stuff about him; almost everything
seems glowing.
I'm amazed that a presidential candidate could do that.
|5.15.07 @ 4:44AM|#
Andrew Sullivan is not a libertarian nor a conservative. He
is demented from AIDS.
He is for gun control and he is laying the ground work to endorse a
Democrat in 2008 and he is trying to make it look like he is
tormented when he has already made up his sick mind.
The guy endorsed Kerry and he has never explained why he endorsed
Kerry when Kerry never released all his military records and lack
of honest was one for the reasons Andrew was not supporting
Bush.
It is also an indicator that Andrew is dementied.
Based on the grammar in that post, which is clearly not from anyone
who is a native speaker of English, I have to conclude that H &
R has taken to outsourcing its trolls to India. Please consider
that there are good American trolls with unused CAPS LOCK keys who
need the work. Troll American!
I'm now going to try to get some much needed sleep.
Cerro|5.15.07 @ 5:20AM|#
Just out of interest, why the lack of love for Sullivan? I know
he's not completely in step, but he's a Goldwater Republican, and
that's a pretty good fit with libertarianism.
Confused in the UK.
|5.15.07 @ 6:47AM|#
Please consider that there are good American trolls with
unused CAPS LOCK keys who need the work. Troll American!
Your sleep deprivation is causing zero-sum thinking...
Consider the comparative advantage: By outsourcing the simple
drudge trolling on low value threads, the American troll can focus
his efforts on high value threads.
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 7:21AM|#
"Andrew Sullivan Comes to Ron Paul's Defense" and so does
Newt!
If you weren't watching FOX & Friends 5 min. before this
comment then you missed it.
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 7:32AM|#
Just out of interest, why the lack of love for Sullivan? I
know he's not completely in step, but he's a Goldwater Republican,
and that's a pretty good fit with libertarianism.
A lot of that came from the Left when he supported liberating Iraq.
His homosexuality suddenly became an issue to be advertised. Kind
of like how they made up Hitchens being homosexual, and finally
noticing that he consumes alcohol, when he supported liberating
Iraq.
Somehow, the folk who pride themselves on being "open and
accepting" are the first to yell "fag" as an argument point.
Somehow this is related to "stopping the hate".
Fluffy|5.15.07 @ 8:11AM|#
What did Gingrich say?
I can only bear to watch Fox between the hours of noon and six. And
then only intermittently. Their prime time programming is horrific
and their morning people are the worst on television.
|5.15.07 @ 8:20AM|#
Guy, not really. Don't confuse the distaste for the views of a
person with the person himself.
Although it does make a perfectly wonderful jackalope. So NBC can
go around whining about how Katie Couric's dropping ratings just
demonstrates how "women just don't have the draw needed for
prime-time television and just don't get the support." Uh, no. The
reason so many of us (men, women, liberals, conservatives) are
turning thumbs down on Katie Couric is because she's a total nitwit
with the brain skills of a demented Pomeranian and the "balance" of
a two-headed coin.
|5.15.07 @ 8:21AM|#
"Nothing wrong with being a gold bug."
Well, you mean except for it being crazy?
Just because you invested some money and it happened to gain in
value over that time doesn't mean it makes any sense to tie the
entire economy to the gold market and have a monetary policy based
on how much of the stuff is dug out of the ground at any given
moment.
|5.15.07 @ 8:47AM|#
plunge,
That comment demonstrated a gaping ignorance of how
destructive the Fed is, and
, how it came
about.
Yes, Ron Paul's advocacy of a gold standard is unwise in that the
government has no business telling people what they should be using
as money. However, all the arguments one can make against a
government-mandated gold-standard apply tenfold to the modern
system of using tokens whose value is based on threats of
imprisonment.
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 9:28AM|#
Yes, Ron Paul's advocacy of a gold standard is unwise in
that the government has no business telling people what they should
be using as money.
They don't do that, they provide an easy means of exchange that
can be used for transactions.
Nothing stopping you from trading in specie, especially since the
Nixon administration got a Democrat Congress to remove the criminal
penalties for USians owning gold.
Just because you, allegedly, can't find enough others to trade
gold, silver, other forms of rare dirt, or even spare tires does
not mean that it should be imposed on the rest of us.
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 9:29AM|#
Guy, not really. Don't confuse the distaste for the views of
a person with the person himself.
The thoughts of a person do not define that person? Interesting.
Then I guess Pat Buchanan ain't all that bad?
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 9:32AM|#
What did Gingrich say?
Something like Ron Paul being the most interesting candidate in the
debate. He is a Libertarian, has positions appealing to
Conservative voters and he is searched for more on Google and other
places than the other candidates. Mentioned something about Chris
Matthews' inappropriate reaction too.
I suspect that the debate tonight will be much better, since they
have a grown up as moderator.
Alex Hammer|5.15.07 @ 9:35AM|#
See Also:
Blog This: Ron Paul Explodes Across Google, Campaign Site, YouTube,
Technorati and more. The mainstream media (MSM) has been ignoring
Ron Paul's spectacular rise (see story for stats and details)
across the Internet's top websites. With enough bloggers blogging
the details of Ron's incredible online success, the mainstream
media will then have to cover it. Wide blogging coverage can break
this MSM silence.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Blog_This_Ron_Paul_Explodes_Across_Google_Campaign_Site_YouTube/blog
|5.15.07 @ 9:37AM|#
I have to say, "You can tell he's demented, because he supported
George Bush's opponent" is some of the best trollery I've seen in
some time.
That guy's crazy!
How crazy is he?
He's sooooooooo crazy...
BTW, Montag, the only gay-bashing hurled at Sullivan over Iraq came
from the right, when he came to his senses a couple years ago.
Jack|5.15.07 @ 9:37AM|#
Good to see the "sullivan is a kooky fag" crowd come out of the woodwork every time he's mentioned anywhere. Does the lol sully crowd have any particular reason why a flat tax/anti drug war/anti spending/pro constitution/pro corporation writer is a liberal?
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 9:45AM|#
Good to see the "sullivan is a kooky fag" crowd come out of
the woodwork every time he's mentioned anywhere.
I think it is just stupid and can really do without it. Can really
do without the selective memory in the comments above yours
too.
Linking someone's political view to their sexual tastes makes no
sense no matter what direction they are coming from. Granted, if
they are advocating special rights for certain sexuality that is a
link to be made, but this other stuff is just nonsense.
Fluffy|5.15.07 @ 9:48AM|#
Guy, strictly speaking, there actually may something stopping me from trading in specie if I want to [not that I want to; that ship has sailed]. I'm not sure, but it's my understanding that US currency is legal tender for all debts. If I started making loans to people and demanding that they be repaid in gold, wouldn't I be stopped?
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 10:01AM|#
I'm not sure, but it's my understanding that US currency is
legal tender for all debts. If I started making loans to people and
demanding that they be repaid in gold, wouldn't I be
stopped?
There you go with this demanding business again.
If you demanded payment from me in anything but US dollars I would
tell you good luck and to go do business with someone else.
How about agreeing? There was something in business law
about that, specifying terms of payment and such.
Sounds like you ignored what I wrote before and are continusing
with a script anyway.
|5.15.07 @ 10:02AM|#
A few years ago, I bought a few gold and platinum coins, as much
as a "fashion statement" as anything; in retrospect, if I had
cashed out my IRA and bought a wheelbarrow full of platinum Eagles,
I would look like a fucking genius.
Does this mean that I actually am a genius (financial-wise)?
Unfortunately, it has more to do with the frenetic cash burn of the
current administration. In the greater scheme of things, returning
to the gold standard is a fabulously dopey, but relatively benign,
obsession.
|5.15.07 @ 10:51AM|#
Saipan: He's the libertarian. Libertarians are far disproportionately active online, especially in interactive stuff. That's what happens when you have a widely-dispersed constituency--there are a lot of us, but only a few in a given area, so we congregate here.
|5.15.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Guy
Do you know what happens when you assume? ;)
Actually, fluffy is right, and you are wrong. Sort of. While it's
true that private entities are allowed to agree before hand what
forms of payment will be made for a future transaction, once a debt
is incurred, the creditor must accept Federal Reserve Notes. So,
you can insist that you want to be paid in barrels of pickled
herring prior to a transaction. If, however the person says that
they can't pay, and you let them have it on credit, and 6 months
later you take them to court, guess how the court's going to make
them pay you? Not in pickled herring, but in FRN's.
Anyway, I'm not advocating that you should be forced to accept
gold. I simply want all legal tender laws repealed. Under such a
scheme, you can go on doing business in FRN's to your heart's
content.
libertreee|5.15.07 @ 11:03AM|#
I'm not sure, but it's my understanding that US currency is
legal tender for all debts.
US Currency is monetized debt, correct?
So, if the nation's currency is built on the nations debt,
Can the Nation ever be out of debt?
By the way, Ron Paul's Minority Report on Gold written in the heady
days of Reagan's first time is back in print. Murray Rothbard
helped to write it-a complete monetary history of the US, much more
readable than Friedman's. See www.lewrockwell.com or mises.org for
a copy.
When was the last time the National Government was ever completely
out of debt?
1834, when that old gold bug, Andrew Jackson, left office.
Hey, can we radio that ship, and bring it back?
|5.15.07 @ 11:11AM|#
tarran says: "...once a debt is incurred, the creditor must
accept Federal Reserve Notes."
I'm curious what your source for that claim is. Here's what the
U.S. Treasury says:
There
is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business,
a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for
payment for goods and/or services.
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Do you know what happens when you assume? ;)
You are making and assumption I never claimed. As I plainly stated,
this information was presented in a Business Law class.
Seems that Son of a! found a portion of the information I was
talking about. What were you talking out of?
Since I will have to dig up my Contracts Law book to find the
specifics, and you should not be holding your breath on that, feel
free to research this to your heart's content.
I have yet to see anybody prosecuted for advertising a car as "will
trade for X", then again I have never looked for one either. Yes,
that is exactly the same thing as trading gold for other goods.
|5.15.07 @ 11:31AM|#
"That comment demonstrated a gaping ignorance of how destructive
the Fed is, and, how it came about."
Please, spare me the vast conspiracy. Just pretend that I'm the man
and I'm in on the whole scam and you'd better change locations
before I send those black Department of the Treasury helicopters
after you.
|5.15.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Read the paragraph above the one you quoted.
If two people agree to an exchange, they can trade whatever they
want, for example computers for barrels of pickled herring.
Once someone owes a debt, then the creditor must accept payment in
FRN's if tendered. Let's say you owe me a 5 barrels of pickled
herring from a previous transaction. If I threaten to sue you for
not paying me the herring, and you offer me FRN's to pay the debt,
I must accept it.
As I said, it is a dumb law and should be repealed. People should
be free to do business in whatever currency they want, gold,
barells of herring, jugs of whiskey ot paper bills.
Fluffy|5.15.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Tarran made my point explicit better than I had.
I am not a gold bug. I was merely taking issue with the statement
that nothing was stopping me from using gold as currency if I
wanted to. I would consider the courts of the US trumping any
contract I wrote using gold as currency to be "stopping" me.
That's all.
|5.15.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Plunge,
Sorry, I prefer a reality based existence to a fantasy based one.
But hey, whatever works for you. ;)
Fluffy|5.15.07 @ 11:36AM|#
OK, reading the thread further, son of A's link pertains to my
point.
It appears that the situation isn't what I had thought it
was.
My understanding of the status of "legal tender" was wrong.
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Just pretend that I'm the man and I'm in on the whole scam
and you'd better change locations before I send those black
Department of the Treasury helicopters after you.
I can fly those. Use the secret signal when you need one.
Derrick|5.15.07 @ 11:42AM|#
OK, so remind me why the feds are going after the makers of Liberty Dollars?
Mike Laursen|5.15.07 @ 11:48AM|#
I'm intrigued by Ron Paul because of his massive Internet
support. How the hell did he do that? He's not even young. He's
really old. How did he decide that he'd be the netroots
candidate?
It seems to be happening spontaneously, without his engineering it.
Apparently, he's just a guy who believes in corny values like
integrity and standing for what he believes in, not a candidate who
is angling for the right position.
I can't find too much negative stuff about him; almost
everything seems glowing.
He holds a couple of positions that many, but not all, libertarians
consider negatives: he's anti-abortion and against open
borders.
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 11:50AM|#
Read the paragraph above the one you quoted.
I read the whole thing and I still do not agree with you.
For one thing, if it was a true agreement then there would be no
disagreement, now would there? Just because you specie traders have
to keep stabbing each other does not impact anything I wrote.
For one thing, if payment in specie were not a legal form of
payment then you would not have a valid contract to begin with.
Just like payment for an illegal act can not be in a contract of
any form, i.e., you might have wrote some words you called a
contract, but you ain't got no contract.
Ever hear the wording "Something of value has been exchanged, such
as cash, services, or goods (or a promise to exchange such an item)
for something else of value."? Kind of one of those important
basics.
Granted, some court can come along and re-value your payment and
award you Bob's boat instead of the house he promised you in the
contract, but was destroyed after you delivered your perfectly
legal services to him, but not even they are bound to force payment
in FRN.
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 11:57AM|#
OK, so remind me why the feds are going after the makers of
Liberty Dollars?
The
Mint notes the coins share some resemblances to real money, such as
the term "Trust in God" instead of "In God We Trust" and use of a
torch in the design. Such similarities may confuse people into
thinking the money is real, the Mint says.
Actually, they go after anything that looks "too much like" real
money.
|5.15.07 @ 12:02PM|#
OK, Guy, enlighten us.
Exactly what does "legal tender" mean?
You seem to be arguing that it is a meaningless concept lacking any
force of law. Am I misunderstanding you?
Fluffy|5.15.07 @ 12:06PM|#
"For one thing, if payment in specie were not a legal form of
payment then you would not have a valid contract to begin
with."
Well, now, wait a second. I might have to retract my retraction. If
the courts will enforce a contract that says, "I will trade you my
cow for your cow," but will not enforce a contract that says, "I
will trade you my cow for 2 oz. of gold," that to me would
constitute "stopping" me from using specie as a currency.
"Just like payment for an illegal act can not be in a contract of
any form, i.e., you might have wrote some words you called a
contract, but you ain't got no contract."
But making my contract illegal would be "stopping" me from using
such a contract.
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Well, now, wait a second. I might have to retract my
retraction. If the courts will enforce a contract that says, "I
will trade you my cow for your cow," but will not enforce a
contract that says, "I will trade you my cow for 2 oz. of gold,"
that to me would constitute "stopping" me from using specie as a
currency.
How are those any different? What court stops anybody from doing
that?
Exactly what does "legal tender" mean?
Wasn't that covered earlier?
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Fluffy,
ALL of the words in my post were important. Seems like you skipped
some of them, like the word IF, as in "If this were the case, then
. . ." but it is not the case, so . . .
|5.15.07 @ 12:53PM|#
The contract under which the debt arose can specify anything as
a medium of exchange that will be accepted by the parties.
I doubt its ever been done, but I suppose you could enter into a
contract which specifically prohibited payment in cash US
dollars.
In the real world, though, refusing to accept US dollars in payment
of a debt is going to create real problems for the creditor who
collect damages because he was never paid.
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 12:59PM|#
In the real world, though, refusing to accept US dollars in
payment of a debt is going to create real problems for the creditor
who collect damages because he was never paid.
IIRC, if you specify payment in a particular currency it is a good
idea to benchmark that as in "Zlotys at the exchange rate on
dd/mm/yyyy". I forgot if you specify payment in Zlotys (or anything
else) and something wild happens to the currency if you have any
recourse.
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 1:02PM|#
In the real world, though, refusing to accept US dollars in
payment of a debt is going to create real problems for the creditor
who collect damages because he was never paid.
Another point, a problem that could arise is making it difficult to
sell that receivable to a Factor, other than Fluffy or tarran of
course.
Fluffy|5.15.07 @ 1:06PM|#
Oh, OK, Guy. I thought you were arguing that a contract
specifying payment in gold would be illegal and thus void.
I did not realize you were just commenting on a hypothetical
situation where that was the case.
|5.15.07 @ 1:13PM|#
RC Dean writes: "I suppose you could enter into a contract which
specifically prohibited payment in cash US dollars."
But if the debtor defaulted, and you sued him, the courts would
require repayment in dollars, no?
I know you're a lawyer, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the courts
don't technically order you to "repay the debt," but to "make the
plaintiff whole," by paying a dollar value equivalent to the
damages you have done him.
Have I got that right?
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 1:45PM|#
I doubt its ever been done, but I suppose you could enter
into a contract which specifically prohibited payment in cash US
dollars.
I know you did not intend this meaning, but it would be just silly
to specify a contract to be paid in "anything but US dollars". By
specifying payment in something other than US dollars, like gold,
then you are already excluding dollars, silver, mulch or any other
form of rare dirt, etc.
|5.15.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Guy, where did I ever claim I wanted to be paid in gold?
That's right nowhere. Once again, I don't care what people use as
money. I am only opposed to people being forced to use one
particular form of money at gunpoint. If Murray Rothbard
wants to do business in gold, and can't find anyone willing to
trade with him, I don't have a problem with it.
I'm still waiting for your explanation as to what what you think
"legal tender" means. So far, it seems you are arguing that the
phrase is now devoid of any legal weight.
If true, that makes me very happy since all I want is that the
legal tender law be repealed.
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Guy, where did I ever claim I wanted to be paid in
gold?
I was kidding you.
Guy Montag|5.15.07 @ 2:34PM|#
tarran,
You already have a Treasury Department link that you have not
bothered reading, plus other discussion on the government issuing
money that is legal to use for payment of goods and services.
Somehow you keep trying to imagine "legal tender" into meaning the
cops will bust your door down with a Balko tank* if you dare
specify payment in something other than "greenbacks", which has
been shown flase to you several times already.
Please, ask someone else as I am not bright enough to explain this
to you.
*M113
|5.15.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Guy sweetie,
No I have not ignored the treasury link. Since you have
consistently misrepresented what I have actually said, I can only
conclude you are either an idiot or a jerk who prefers dishonesty
to looking stupid.
I have never claimed that the government prevents me in all cases
from doing business in something other than FRN's. I have said that
the governemnt requires, in certain circumstances, that I accept
them, namely when a debtor offers them to me to liquidate a
debt.
That is the definition of legal tender. You have repeatedly claimed
that nobody is ever forced to accept FRN's. Except the Treasury
website does contradict you. It claims, as I assert, that a debtor
can redeem a debt in FRN's regardless of how the creditor wants to
be paid.
So I ask again, what do you think "legal tender" means?
|5.15.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Andrew Sullivan, no matter what else one thinks about him, is great for one simple reason. That reason is that if you mention the guy's name and someone starts foaming at the mouth about how he's "dementied" and not really a conservative, you know that person is just a lockstep right-wing goon.
|5.15.07 @ 4:56PM|#
Sullivan's sexuality doesn't bother me the slightest, but sometimes he comes out with a post so snarky it makes O'Reilly blush.
highnumber|5.15.07 @ 7:51PM|#
No one's still reading this, so I'll make my confession:
I get Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens confused. I know
which is which. Sullivan = gay American Catholic. Christopher
Hitchens = chain smoking Brit. Beyond that, however, I don't know
which one was for the war, or if they both were, or which one wrote
for which magazine, or who is hated by whom and why.
Don't tell anybody else my secret.
highnumber|5.15.07 @ 7:55PM|#
Wait a minute, is Sullivan a Brit, too?
Nuts, I'm more confused than ever.
|5.16.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Beyond that, however, I don't know which one was for the war, or if they both were, or which one wrote for which magazine, or who is hated by whom and why.
Hitchens is a pro-war lefty (as in, former communist). He's always
been an abrasive guy and is liked and hated in different places for
his writing.
Sullivan was a pro-war conservative who changed his views and came
out against Bush and the war (no pun intended), whereupon the more
twittish Reds began making contemptible remarks about his
homosexuality and even his HIV infection.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245