Politics

"An In-Depth Look at Ron Paul": NPR's On Point featuring Nick Gillespie

|

Yesterday, I was on the NPR show On Point, which is hosted by Tom Ashbrook and produced outta Boston. Here's the show's summary:

Texas congressman and libertarian-minded Republican Ron Paul has been in politics for a long time now. Twelve terms in the House. More than one swing – typically quixotic – at the presidency.

But never has Ron Paul's sway been as apparent and his presidential ambitions as on fire as they are right now. The country is worried, and Ron Paul is a refreshingly candid "true believer" with an answer. Slash government to the bone. Bring the troops home from everywhere. Scrap the Fed. Defend personal liberty. And go free market.

This hour, On Point: the banner year of Ron Paul.

I was joined by callers throughout and

Ned Martel, reporter for the Washington Post. His recent story on Ron Paul is here.

Ben Levine, a student at Drake University and an Iowa precinct captain for Ron Paul 2012.

Max Boot, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The exchange with Boot on foreign policy issues and defense spending is especially interesting, I think. Boot dismisses Paul's bring-the-troops-home rhetoric as good old-fashioned isolationism and ineffectual on the policy debate. More to the point, he talks as if the past 20 years or so doesn't exist and we're still locked in a twilight struggle with the Soviets, ChiCom, and others. The only reason Europe isn't once again awash in mass destruction within its borders, don't you know, is because of American troops stationed there. That comes towards the end of hour.

You can listen to the show here.

NEXT: Reason Morning Links: Ron Paul One Point Behind Gingrich in Iowa, Time Names "Protester" Person of the Year, Euro Plummets

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ron Paul is indeed the voice of reason in the Republican candidacy campaign so far. As a classic Liberalist living in Europe I certainly hope Dr Paul will go all the way to the White House.

  2. Gillespie is deceitful fraudster.

    Brings up the newsletters and associates them with Paul.

    There is no link between Paul and newsletters other than his name stamped on them by some Jackass who was a bigot.

    Today I can publish something Stalinist with Gillespie’s name on it and start distributing it.

    Should Gillespie be held accountable for that?

    The problem with Gillespie is he wants to sell himself and Reason and he wants more traffic from Paul supporters and Paul haters.

    I say, Paul supporters out caste Reason and any association with Gillespie.

    Gillespie is a vicious thug and the best way to deal with this worthless gutter is to ignore him and let him stew in his own swamp.

    1. But you’re okay with the wardrobe, right?

    2. Well, I guess I don’t need to check out the LewRockwell.com blog today anymore.

    3. KOCHTOPUS!

    4. Today I can publish something Stalinist with Gillespie’s name on it and start distributing it.

      Should Gillespie be held accountable for that?

      Depends. Did Gillespie give you permission to publish under his name?

      1. Oh, and after the offensive material came to light, did he publish a retraction?

        1. Re: Montani Semper Liberi,

          Oh, and after the offensive material came to light, did he publish a retraction?

          Did who write a retraction? And why should offensive material be retracted? ANYTHING you write can be construed as “offensive” by some asshole.

          If the writer had said something that was not true or inaccurate, then a retraction would be in order. But retract from “offensive speech”? Who the fuck are you, the Campus Speech Police?

          1. Remind me not to hire you as my campaign manager, OM.

            1. Re: Citizen Nothing,

              Remind me not to hire you as my campaign manager, OM.

              Irrelevant, CN. The fact is, there was no retraction back then nor was one warranted as we’re talking about 4 sentences from thousands, so asking for one twenty plus fucking years later is nothing more than malicious hair-splitting.

          2. If the writer had said something that was not true or inaccurate, then a retraction would be in order.

            I don’t know. I know many “Negroes” who are asthmatic and can’t run for shit.

            1. Re: Heroic Mulatto,

              I don’t know. I know many “Negroes” who are asthmatic and can’t run for shit.

              Are they also armed robbers by trade?

              1. I plead the 5th.

                1. Re: Heroic Mulatto,

                  I plead the 5th.

                  😀

                  Jokes aside, if what the Media has to go on are four sentences – count them, 4 – out of thousands, about many topics, it will be seen as a crass and sloppy smear campaign, regardless of how offensive you or I might find those utterances. We can debate the wisdom of whoever wrote them, but it would be nothing more than a mere academic exercise precisely because Paul did not write them himself.

                  Instead, take a look at what someone actually SAID, HIMSELF:

                  “I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects ?certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.”

                  Basically saying “Yeah, you’re an ape, not even close to my capability, but an ape with rights. There, thank me.” That was Abraham Lincoln, during his debate with Frederick Douglas.

                  1. Basically saying “Yeah, you’re an ape, not even close to my capability, but an ape with rights. There, thank me.”

                    Wrong. Lincoln said “Obviously we are not the same color. It MAY be the case (i.e. “perhaps” it is the case) that black folks are dumber than white folks, BUT that does not matter in America.”

                    Now who fails English?

                    1. Re: Beloved Rev. Blue Moon,

                      Wrong. Lincoln said “Obviously we are not the same color. It MAY be the case (i.e. “perhaps” it is the case) that black folks are dumber than white folks,

                      I can read English and can read exactly what Lincoln said: “Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects”

                      He wasn’t simply speaking in terms of his whiteness, but in terms of his own greatness.

                    2. I can read English and can read exactly what Lincoln said: “Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects”

                      He wasn’t simply speaking in terms of his whiteness, but in terms of his own greatness.

                      Now you are just making stuff up. Your original summary of Lincoln was that line that started with “basically saying”. Once I demonstrated that you completely misread the quote, you have now shifted gears and now claim the quote is really about Lincoln’s self-aggrandizement.

                      You want to know what else kills me?

                      Basically saying “Yeah, you’re an ape, not even close to my capability, but an ape with rights. There, thank me.” That was Abraham Lincoln, during his debate with Frederick Douglas.

                      Did Lincoln ever debate Frederick Douglas? Nice one, OM! And, given that the debate with Stephen Douglas took place in 1858, I doubt that Lincoln would have expected *anyone* to thank him.

                      So, not only do you fail English, you fail history too.

                    3. Re: Beloved Rev. Blue Moon,

                      Once I demonstrated that you completely misread the quote,

                      I didn’t.

                      you have now shifted gears and now claim the quote is really about Lincoln’s self-aggrandizement.

                      Oh? You mean this is NOT about his self-aggrandizement? “”Yeah, you’re an ape, not even close to my capability, but an ape with rights.” I know what I wrote.

                      Who is misreading now, B?

                      Did Lincoln ever debate Frederick Douglas? Nice one, OM!

                      For that, I apologize, I assumed something that was not.

                      Will you extend the same courtesy to me now, B?

                    4. Oh? You mean this is NOT about his self-aggrandizement? “”Yeah, you’re an ape, not even close to my capability, but an ape with rights.” I know what I wrote.

                      Who is the “you” in that quote? Stephen Douglas? That makes absolutely no sense.

                      You did misread the quote. Lincoln is saying “Blacks are not obviously not my equal – look at how they are a different color than me! Now, there MAY be some other stuff too where black are not equal, but that’s irrelevant.”

                      It’s Lincoln being political. I would also like to point out that this is no way relevant to the modern-day. No candidate for President in my recent memory has ever had a publication go out that says anything remotely as offensive as the stuff that went out in his name.

                    5. Re: Beloved Rev. Blue Moon,

                      No candidate for President in my recent memory has ever had a publication go out that says anything remotely as offensive as the stuff that went out in his name.

                      You’re now being silly, B. Worse utterances have been made by politicians themselves, on record, forever to be seen and heard, yet you want to pin this as if Paul not only believed it, but even agreed with it.

                    6. Worse utterances have been made by politicians themselves, on record, forever to be seen and heard,

                      You had to go all the way back to Lincoln the first time. Go with the modern-day: let’s say the past 30 years or so.

                    7. I can read English and can read exactly what Lincoln said: “Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects”

                      Lincoln was referring to Douglass’ prowess in one-on-one half-court street ball.

          3. If the writer had said something that was not true or inaccurate, then a retraction would be in order. But retract from “offensive speech”? Who the fuck are you, the Campus Speech Police?

            You are as dumb as a post. No, he is not the “Speech Police”, he is someone who is giving a perspective on what the smart move, politically, would be. You can go around calling gay people “faggots” all day long, and while that would be accurate (“faggot” being an offensive word for a gay person), it’s the offensive part that bothers people. It’s the hateful background of the word and/or hateful meaning you intend to convey with that speech.

            1. Re: Beloved Rev. Blue Moon,

              he is someone who is giving a perspective on what the smart move, politically, would be.

              And my answer serves to indicate that his recommendation is foolish.

              You can go around calling gay people “faggots” all day long […]it’s the offensive part that bothers people.

              Certainly, some people may feel offended if I get to their faces and call them names. In the case we’re discussing there is no such intention, the newsletters having a limited circulation intended for subscribers only. This is the reason why I put CN to task as he is not the speech police.

              It’s the hateful background of the word and/or hateful meaning you intend to convey with that speech.

              Ok, so I ask you: Are you the speech police? Was it Paul that stood on a soapbox at the square and chanted racist screeds, or was it instead an essay written in a limited circulation newsletter by someone NOT Paul?

              You have been bending over backwards to pin a responsability on Paul that he did not have. If the speech was offensive for someone, obviously that someone had to be a subscriber; he could have proceeded to cancel his subscription in protest or write a letter to the editor to protes the language of that single essay. Instead people like CN (or you) wanted PAUL HIMSELF to immediately publish an apology and – almost – self-flagellate to expiate his sins. This is obviously an over the top expectation, absurd to the point of pigheadedness.

              1. Fine, you know what, OM? I am the Fucking “Speech Police”, whatever that means, and I am telling you that the race-baiting that occurred under Ron Paul’s name was not only stupid, but it was offensive. Also, because I am the Fucking Speech Police, I will tell you to knock off calling Tony a Pederast. That, too, is offensive and makes you a world-class fuckhead.

                If you want to ostrich out and hang your hat on “Buh-buh-but My Beloved didn’t actually write that mean stuff!”, then go ahead and ostrich out. This is world-class political foolishness on your part, and I am not going to bother to explain to you why any more, because not only do you not get it, you don’t WANT to get it.

                1. Re: Beloved Rev. Blue Moon,

                  I am telling you that the race-baiting that occurred under Ron Paul’s name was not only stupid, but it was offensive.

                  Offensive to whom, you fool? 4 sentences out of thousands between all those years of publication is HARDLY a pattern of “race baiting.” What does it matter NOW, anyway? Why put Paul to task NOW?

                  I will tell you to knock off calling Tony a Pederast. That, too, is offensive and makes you a world-class fuckhead.

                  It is not up to you to tell me what I should call a guy who has demonstrated such intellectual dishonesty to the point of not deserving any respect from me. It is NOT your fight – back off.

                  This is world-class political foolishness on your part

                  Really? A little more perspective, B. This is something written by someone not known by you, 20 plus years ago; it is not consistent with Paul’s philosophy. It is a NON ISSUE. Yet you’re treating it as if Paul was a Nazi sympathizer or something – I have to question why.

                  1. Offensive to whom, you fool?

                    To me, the Fucking Speech Police. So take that.

                    What does it matter NOW, anyway? Why put Paul to task NOW?

                    Because he is relevant NOW, is politically worthwhile NOW.

                    It is not up to you to tell me what I should call a guy who has demonstrated such intellectual dishonesty to the point of not deserving any respect from me. It is NOT your fight – back off.

                    I will choose whatever fight I want. Stop calling him that, you bigot.

                    It is a NON ISSUE. Yet you’re treating it as if Paul was a Nazi sympathizer or something – I have to question why.

                    I am not – others will. FWIW, I still want to see whomever it was who wrote blatant race-baiting and gay-bashing material put to task for besmirching the reputation of one of the few politicians I admire. That said, you need to stop being an ostrich and open your eyes. RP is running for President.

                    1. Re: Beloved Rev. Blue Moon,

                      [Offensive] [t]o me, the Fucking Speech Police. So take that.

                      I’m sorry to hear that. Grow a tougher skin, mademoiselle.

                      Because he is relevant NOW, is politically worthwhile NOW.

                      Non sequitur. Do you mean to tell me the sentences were less offensive before because he was less relevant?

                      I will choose whatever fight I want.

                      Why? For what purpose?

                      I am not [concerned] – others will.

                      Oh? You read minds? Why would you be so concerned about what others might think?

                      Are you even a libertarian, B? Let’s start with that.

                    2. OM, I must say you bitchilly demanding that your interlocutors grow a thicker skin because they hurt your feelings is utterly fascinating.

                      Ron Paul is a man. He’s not a god. He’s not infallible. He has flaws and has, on occasion, done some incredibly stupid shit. He also is currently doing some stupid shit.

                      Pointing this out does not make one a fool or a non-libertarian.

                      Your panty-wetting over-the-top reactions to people bringing up his flaws shows you to be very thin-skinned. Take the fucking beam out of your eye, comrade.

                    3. I’m sorry to hear that. Grow a tougher skin, mademoiselle.

                      No. And it would greatly amuse me to hear you get on television and tell teh gheys to get back to their closets.

                    4. Why? For what purpose?

                      Because you’re an ass. Or for no reason at all. Regardless, you calling Tony a pederast is uncalled for, and it (of course) smells like gay-bashing.

                    5. “calling Tony a pederast is uncalled for, and it (of course) smells like gay-bashing.

                      The shark is jummped.

      2. “Did Gillespie give you permission to publish under his name?”

        He may have. BEFORE he decided to publish something Stalinist in Gillespie’s name.

    5. “associates them with Paul”

      Yeah, it would be different if he knew about them. Oh wait, he did. You’re right though, just covering these things up always works out for the best. Hero worshipping politicians is sad no matter who they are.

      1. Re: AlmightyJB,

        Yeah, it would be different if he knew about them. Oh wait, he did.

        You read minds?

        1. Yes, the Ron Paul newsletters were published and distributed for years to tens of thousands of people under my name and I was completely clueless that they ever existed. Can I be your leader? I know nothing! Nothing!

          1. Re: Imbecile who can hardly read English,

            Yes, the Ron Paul newsletters were published and distributed for years to tens of thousands of people under my name and I was completely clueless that they ever existed.

            No, you dumbass – that he was aware of what was being published, all sentences and paragraphs.

          2. And how can you presume to know what his priorities are? He seems to be a very busy individual. Even if he made a ton of money off of it, it still doesn’t mean that it’s as important to him as practicing medicine or serving in Congress.

    6. “Gillespie is a vicious thug…”

      Ever want to win the war of ideas? Then stop misapplying words.

      Thug: killer; gangster; assassin; robber; hoodlum

      Gillespie may be a beltway hipster libertinarian, but a thug he is not.

      1. He’s a hipster? Gross.

      2. Beltway? I thought he lived in Ohio?

      3. Gillespie may be a beltway hipster libertinarian, but a thug he is not.

        But what about The Jacket?

        1. I was assaulted by The Jacket and left bruised, bleeding, and unconscious in the alley. Fucker took my wallet too!

    7. Thanks for the laughs. By the way, why don’t you follow your own advice and ignore Nick?

    8. As a wise man once said — Love the Paul, hate the Paultard.

      1. I LOOM LARGE

    9. Newt Gingrich: Asshole

    10. You’re one dumb motherfucker. Did you even attempt to listen to it?

    11. Dude, the newsletters story loses its power with repetition.

      The worst thing you could do if you support Paul is try to hide from this story.

      Get it out there. Talk it out. Draw the poison.

      Because if you think that Rachel Maddow cares whether you think it’s a fair accusation, you’re delusional. SOMEONE is going to use this material. Another campaign, or someone in the media. And they won’t care if you stamp your feet about it. That being the case, the thing to do NOW is wear the story down NOW.

      Heck, we should have spent the last four years grinding this story down.

      1. I agree with this. I also think the best counter to the newsletters, which Paul didn’t write, is quoting things he actually has written, before and since. Things like: “Racism is simply the ugliest form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.”

    12. The stuff was published in the Ron Paul Newsletter which was commissioned and authorized by Ron Paul. When stuff is published under your name on the masthead, you own it.

      Now, it’s worth noting that at about the same time everyone was concerned about a new class of “super criminal” which everyone also recognized as code for “young black males from single parent households”; ie black males who had been born into poverty to women who were not even adults themselves in some cases and had never known any positive male influence.

      Liberals believed that it was because “we” had not spent enough money on these people, conservatives thought that it was because we had spent too much.

      Bill Clinton even proposed that we should build places for them to play basketball at night. Presumably the belief was that if the brothers had some place to shoot hoops they wouldn’t be shooting each other.

      1. What exactly constitutes “commissioning” in this context?

        Cause I’m pretty sure he didn’t commission it.

        1. My understanding is that Ron Paul arranged to have a newsletter published with his name in the tile. If that is not “commissioning” then use whatever word you want to.

          When you arrange to have a newsletter published under your name, you accept the responsibility for what is published in it.

          As I noted, the social ills of the inner city were something that caused concern for a lot of people at the time. The fact that Lew Rockwell, or whoever, chose to comment on the harmful affects of the welfare state and other economic policies in such an offensive way shows poor judgment if not outrigh racist sentiments.

          The fact that RP let the stuff go through, or failed to notice it, shows poor management.

          1. I don’t think that’s how it happened. My understanding is that people (some conglomeration of the Rockwell/Rothbard crowd) approached him and said, “We can use your name to make this newsletter thing. All you have to do is write an article every couple of months, and we’ll take care of the rest.”

            1. Yes, but that is all conjecture because the Man won’t answer the damn question or say that very thing.

              1. submitted for the record:

                “The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do
                not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never
                uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

                “In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that
                we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character,
                not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S.
                House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and
                high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of
                individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

                “This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.
                It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the
                day of the New Hampshire primary.

                “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a
                newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several
                writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have
                publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention
                to what went out under my name.”

                Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
                Jesse Benton, 703-248-9115

            2. It still means that he has given his consent and is, hence, responsible for the entire content.

              And, it’s a sad thing. I’ve met Ron Paul and he is one of the nicest people on this planet. The things that were in the newsletters were completely out of character.

              I never saw any of the actual newletters but I saw snippets of the articles in fundraising letters trying to get me to subscribe (I was on RP’s mailing list for years). Even then, I saw them as potentially harmful for RP.

              The fact that he is not jumping to save himself by throwing the actual writer[s] under the bus is just moe evidence of his niceness.

    13. Brings up the newsletters and associates them with Paul.

      Actually it’s the newsletters themselves that associate with Ron Paul. Due primarily to having the words “Ron” and “Paul” emblazoned across the title.

      I fully understand that Ron Paul did not write the newsletters with his name on them, but by suggesting that they are not associated with him it is you who are being deceitful.

  3. Props on the alt-text.

  4. The next time Europe is awash in mass self destruction, I hope we decide to stay home.

  5. Funny I’ve been told by libertarians that the only reason Europe can afford to provide universal healthcare is because of the US’s generous provision of armed defense.

    1. Guess it wasn’t very smart to create an entitlement out of wholecloth that they couldn’t afford then, huh?

      1. Considering healthcare is cheaper for European countries that cover people universally than it has been for the US which does not, seems that the dumbest action is to keep it largely privatized.

        1. It’s also funny how Europeans that need complex treatments or surgeries fly to America.

          If not for America’s remnant of private sector within healthcare, those Europeans would be shit out of luck.

          But hey, who needs quality?
          Let’s all suffer equally, like the good socialist gods wanted us to.

          1. In other words, if you’re poor and can’t afford any healthcare at all, fuck you, die moocher? That about right?

            1. As opposed to Europe where the situation is if you’re poor or not politically connected and can’t afford any healthcare besides what the government says you can have, fuck you, die prole. It’s a much better system.

            2. Right, a great example of this was when libertarian hospital owners & doctors rounded up all the poor in Chicago in 1920 and dumped them into their boilers for fuel. Prior to being legally obligated to furnish medical services, no health care institution would ever provide care for anyone who was a bent farthing short of paying their bill, correct?

              1. What I fear is that once all Americans have access to free Lasik surgery, the monocle will go the way of the dodo.

                1. I had LASIK and still have a monocle, CN. You can’t peer disapprovingly at the proles without a monocle.

              2. So you’re for subsidized national healthcare then?

            3. Tony, whenever you start a sentence with “In other words” or “So what you’re saying is,” please stop and slap yourself in the fucking head for setting up strawmen to knock down, then come up with a legit argument. Thanks.

              I also believe we have a consensus on this, so you must obey.

            4. You are a riot! You’re acting as if medical services are denied due to lack of insurance – not true. You may go into debt and or bankruptcy as a result of the bills you’ll incur, but . . . anyone is free to go to the doctor, or the ER. There is no rationed care of the kind you find in Europe. Not yet, at least.

              1. Oh so you don’t want to tell poor people to fuck off and die, just fuck off and be bankrupt forever.

                In my book you don’t get any points for expressing theoretical compassion. Either you’re for healthcare as a right or you’re not, and must accept all the consequences of that. If you want to be totally inconsistent in order to evade the worst of those consequences, that’s your problem.

                1. See, the problem here is that someone must -provide- healthcare. You’re declaring that slavery is legal so long as it’s in service of Healthcare.

                  Sorry, not buying the “doctors are our slaves!” bit.

                  1. Then again, Democrats have always been the supporters of slavery, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to find Tony supporting the enslavement of doctors.

                  2. Doctors get paid handsomely, thus they are not slaves in any way.

                    1. Tony, you really are stupid. Even when confronted with your own ignorance on the subject you refuse to learn from it.

                      If healthcare is a *right* then nobody can deny you that right. No doctor can deny you your *right* to his services, no matter what the pay is (or isn’t.)

                      You may not like it, but being forced by the law to perform an action in service for someone else is slavery. Period. End of discussion.

                      I don’t find it surprising that you consider it fashionable to claim a portion of another person’s life.

                    2. I think Ron Paul has already covered the myth of peeople not recieving medical care when they absolutely need it.

                2. Bankruptcy isn’t forever.

                3. ok, then, Tony. I’ll say it…I am not for healthcare [paid for by someone else] as a right.

                4. As opposed to the whole country going bankrupt, which is coming thanks to the policies you support. I’m sure that will be great, but hey, then we all get to suffer equally, right? That seems to be all you care about.

                  By the way, no, healthcare is not a right. You have no right to my labor. I fully accept the consequences of that and prefer them to being forced to work, which equates to slavery in my book. I do stop on the roadside to render my medical services when I see a need and do so for no payment. I’m be happy to treat legitimately poor individuals for free or low cost. Unfortunately, as Ron Paul quite correctly points out, the government induced corporatization of medicine has caused costs to skyrocket and priced it out of the reach of many consumers. Your solution to government-induced problems: more government solutions. Seriously, Tony…if ever there was a totally inconsistent poster on this planet, it’s you.

                  1. “I’ll be happy”. Damn.

          2. What information is your assertion based on?
            I am honestly curious. I do not have any statistics on who flies where for surgery and for what reason(s), but I do have an anecdote about a personal friend who had to go to the UK for treatment. The American system would have had him half bedridden and constantly on immuno-suppressants, but the Brits had a far more sensible and cheaper approach that has enabled him to lead a normal life.
            It seems to me that the Pharmacological business here in the USA is painfully expensive and often very inefficient, possibly by design in order to maximize profits for the folks at the top.

            1. the Brits had a far more sensible and cheaper approach that has enabled him to lead a normal life.
              Right. Sounds like a set-up for a Python sketch.

              1. “I’ll ‘ave you know I’m leading a normal life!”
                “But you ‘aven’t got a head!”
                “Yes I ‘ave!”

            2. People outsource dental work to places like Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, etc. Also I’ve heard of people going to Panama for treatments not yet approved by the FDA.

              The future of globalization will see people taking medical vacations. And the poor in America ride on airplanes and go to places like Cancun already.

              1. It’s kind of ironic. Because of tighter border security Mexicans in this country (and even some people of Mexican descent who were born and raised here) are no longer going to Tijuana and other border cities for medical and, especially, dental care because it’s become such a hassle to get back.

                Even if you’re a citizen, the latinao look just gets you scrutiny that makes the whole thing un pleasant.

                The illegal has an even bigger problem which then leaves him or her dependant on the ER and the huge bill that comes with it (which they will more than likely not pay) instead of going back to Mexico and paying for what the get.

        2. How are those outcomes in jolly ol’ England, you disingenuous twit?

        3. We Americans are so dumb what with our highest survival rates for cancer and other major diseases.

        4. Tony, did you read the study that indicates public healthcare not only serves poor children well but is superior for wealthier children on private pay?

        5. Considering healthcare is cheaper for European countries that cover people universally

          It’s cheaper because they don’t get the same coverage. Giving people access, but then not actually providing healthcare is cheap. Very cheap. I can do it for free, in fact.

          Guess how long my waiting list is?

    2. Who said the Euros could afford universal healthcare? Looks to me like they are overextended and going broke, in spite of the fact that we give them a free army.

      1. Yeah, but that’s because of all the government jobs and benefits.

        Then again, Tony likes those too. So either way Tony’s wonderful European welfare states are sinking into quicksand.
        But i’m sure he has some excuse for that.

        1. It’s because of all that horrible austerity in Greece and Spain and Italy.

      2. Yes, strange how the evidence is precisely that they can’t afford what they’re doing. And the trillions we’ve saved them in defense spending coupled with the stability they might not have being America’s client state (which is what history will call them for this period), well, I don’t think they’re a great example of “socialism working.”

      3. Wasn’t socialism that caused the financial crisis, and economists are coming around to realizing that Europe’s austerity measures have gone from being a response to the crisis to contributing to it.

        1. Tony, here’s a word for you:

          Re-hypothecation. Now combine that with repo and accounting control fraud, and that is how the EU experiment has been financed and why their banks are about to collapse.

        2. There’s a consensus you’re wrong Tony, stfu.

          1. Consensus only matters in science.

            1. Oh trust me, there’s a science to Tony’s idiocy.

        3. Right now the Europeans are shitting the bed because their banks invested in…government bonds from the Eurozone.

          The entire narrative about evil US subprime lenders destroying the economy due to deregulation kind of falls flat on its face when you realize that Europe is about to collapse because various nations there can’t finance their ongoing government operations if rates rise into the 6% range.

          Europe is in trouble because interest rates were too low for too long (with regional variation in the Eurozone accentuating their rate differential problem) and as rates revert to the mean their governments, addicted to inexpensive credit, are finding that they are insolvent.

          Gee, who has been saying for three years that the economic crisis was a result of interest rate policy at the macro level? Hmmmmmm who could that have been.

          1. Someone should make a school of economics with this as one of it’s central theories. Oh, right.

      4. They can afford it because it is a right. Can’t you see that?

    3. Afford? Ummm, the Euro currency is about to collapse. The banks are failing, and the runs are starting in Greece. If it wasn’t for the money the US gives to the IMF, which has been hijacked by the EU with their nomination of Ms LeGarrde, and money from the Fed and Treasury, the Euro would have crashed months ago. But yet the Eurofanatics are still trying to save the currency and the Union instead of trying to plan an orderly transition back to national currencies.

      Socialism is, and always has been, a failure. The EU didn’t lift the countries with weaker economies up, it dragged the countries with stronger economies down. But that’s what Socialism does.

    4. Re: Tony the Economics Ignoramus Pederast,

      Funny I’ve been told by libertarians that the only reason Europe can afford to provide universal healthcare[…]

      Europe can’t afford universal healthcare at all. The fact that you have EVER INCREASING LINES and WAITING TIMES indicates that the TRUE COST is manifesting itself in non-pecuniary ways.

      Your misinterpretation of the facts and your unwillingness to see reality indicate your lack of intellectual sophistication and very sparse critical thinkling skills. To be more succinct: You’re a fool.

      1. Also ever increasing national debts – it wasn’t like the debts were shrinking even during the boom.

      2. Stale scare stories from the 90s? do you even read new rightwing bullshit?

        1. Re: Tony The Obfuscating Pederast,

          Stale scare stories from the 90s?

          No, dipshit – as recent as 2007.

  6. “….we’re still locked in a twilight struggle with the Soviets, ChiCom, and others.”

    But we are still locked in a twilight struggle, only with International Terrorism, and if we don’t send troops into every conceivable country on the face of the planet, the entire world will be awash in mass destruction! At least, this is what I have been told.

    Regarding the newsletters, for the thousandth time, it doesn’t matter to the media if Ron Paul actually wrote the letters or not, or whether is he is a racist or not. What matters is the accusation and taint that these letters will bring. We live in a politically correct society and the merest whiff of racism is all that it takes to doom a non-leftist public figure.

    As far as Gillespie mentioning the letters, so what? It’s the truth, isn’t it? As I have said before, the minute Ron Paul wins the primary (which he won’t), NPR will be reading them on the air with glee.

    1. Ron Paul on CNN regarding newsletters.

      The only real argument that can be made is that he was irresponsible for allowing his name to be used and not following up, which happened early in his carrer while he was still a practicing Ob/Gyn, and a political novice.

      Whoopti-fucking-do

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

      1. It won’t matter what he says. He can resurrect the corpse of Martin Luther King Jr to endorse him and it wouldn’t help him. It simply doesn’t matter and I don’t understand why so many people can’t grasp the concept of the political consequences of the accusation of racism in modern American politics.

        I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist. Know what? Doesn’t matter if he isn’t.

        I don’t think he reviewed the newsletters before they were sent out. Doesn’t matter.

        Etc.

        1. Exactly, if Paul would ever get frontrunner status, these things will be pulled out of everyones back pocket and Paul will go down faster than Courtney Stodden at a Yacht club.

          1. Depends on his response this time around. last time it was a piss-poor response, but given the right soothing words, Americans will forgive most political transgressions.

            1. Exactly — the biggest problem is that he hasn’t been out front with this. He should mention it in a few interviews before he’s asked.
              Something about how “over the years I’ve acquired executive skills which I once lacked. Maybe you haven’t heard about the time I let some objectionable newsletters be published without reading them first. But believe me, I learned a lesson there.”

              1. And this tactic should be so obvious, at least to a competent campaign strategist, that it makes me very nervous that Paul hasn’t done it.

              2. Re: Citizen Nothing,

                Exactly — the biggest problem is that he hasn’t been out front with this. He should mention it in a few interviews before he’s asked.

                Remind ME not to hire YOU as a political consultant, CN.

                He doesn’t have to be “upfront about this” simply because he didn’t do anything wrong. Going around saying “Hey, I’m no racist! I’m nio racist!” is asking for the kid to burn you with the magnifying lens. It would be an admission of having done something wrong.

                Look at actual politicians saying actual racist things THEMSELVES, ON THE RECORD, FOREVER – yet they’re still there destroying the country. And you think Ron is going to be put to task for something someone ELSE wrote 20 plus fucking years ago? Give me a break.

                This is so a non-issue that the MSM has been intelligent enough not to run with it. Only the Reason smear-detail were stupid enough to grab this, in their detriment, not Paul’s.

                1. If Obama got a pass for a long time association with a certain reverend uttering horrible racist epitaths and crazy crackpot theories on camera than I doubt the newsletter thing will affect Ron Paul that much.

                  1. ^^ THIS ^^

                    It creeps me out just how many here are already salivating and rubbing their hands at the prospect of this “newsletter issue” coming out. It is such a non-issue that I have to question the reasoning behind such expectation.

                    1. As an admitted member of the MSM, I must tell you, OM, I think you’re whistling past the graveyard.
                      Again, when the newsletters hit the fan (again), logic, justice and truth will have absolutely nothing to do with it.

                    2. The difference between Ron Paul and Obama is that media has been tenderizing RP as the ‘crazy guy’ for the past 5 years. People are pretty forgiving, but as RP gains traction, the ‘crazy guy’ meme is going to be in the back of their minds and when they hear of the newsletters (because most of the actual voters haven’t heard of them yet) it’s going to come right to forefront and they’ll say, “You know, I always heard he was crazy, I guess this just proves it.”

                      With Obama, he was played up as the sanest guy in the history of the world so when his preacher was nuts everybody said, “Well, I’ve sat through pretty crazy stuff before, and I’ve heard this guy is super competent, so it’s not his fault.”

                      I’m with CN on this. Get out there and counter this. Because, should RP get the nom or even a few state victories, the newsletters will front page shit, as though it all happened yesterday.

                    3. The sad thing here is that Paul would rather go down in flames than humiliate what must be a major figure in his circle.

                  2. If Obama got a pass for a long time association with a certain reverend uttering horrible racist epitaths and crazy crackpot theories on camera than I doubt the newsletter thing will affect Ron Paul that much.

                    You’re downright delusional if you seriously believe that the vermin in the media are going to treat Ron Paul the same way they treated Obama.

        2. He’s got no history of being a racist, so something indirect like this isn’t likely to do much damage. He could also deal with it by naming a black VP.

        3. It won’t matter what he says.

          Of course it does. Bill Clinton “didn’t inhale”.

          I think people are getting sick and tired of “political correctness”, to begin with.

          Right now, as opposed to 2008, I mostly see the Zionists trying to paint RP as a racist and anti-Semitic. That, IMO, will die quickly.

          1. That only works for Democrats because the media is complicit. BTW…I hope you’re right and I’m wrong but I don’t think that’s the case.

          2. I don’t know how tired people are of being politically correct. Look at how quickly Cain’s campaign bombed after the sexual harassment allegations came out. Clinton is different because he is a Democrat. We know that the standard is different for them.

            1. Cain had a 13 year affair. He might have survived if it was just the sexual harassment.

            2. And like I said, in 2008 it was mostly the leftists trying to paint him as racist. Now, those attacks seem to be coming mostly from the conservative Christian and Jewish Zionists because he opposes sending money to Israel. We know how the leftists feel about Israel, right?

            3. Well there is a difference between having an affair and smoking pot (Clinton) and sexually assaulting someone (Cain) because putting your hand up someone’s skirt uninvited is assault, not harassment like the media says. Cheating on your wife with a willing lady is consensual.
              You’re comparing apples to oranges.

              1. Ankles, while you’re spinning everything else Clinton did, don’t forget to cover the whole lying under oath thing, too.

              2. It wasn’t consensual for his wife. It was a violation of his marriage vows which is far worse in many circles.

                I think people are getting sick of the sexual harassment laws, as well. It’s one thing for a boss to make a subordinate suck to his cock or be fired and another asking her to a bar for a drink. The man doesn’t even have to be her superior any longer. It can be a co-worker.

              3. And there’s a difference between having an affair and smoking pot (…) and having an affair and lying about it in front of a grand jury. Not to mention, Clinton was also sued for sexual harrassment –

                Hang on, I almost got sucked into a fifteen-year-old argument.

                1. Sorry, not a grand jury. Under oath.

            4. Cain’s response was muddled and confused. People started believing his was obfuscating to hide something more.

              1. Re: Lost In Translation,

                Cain’s response was muddled and confused. People started believing his was obfuscating to hide something more.

                And remember, we’re talking about alleged ACTIONS with actual VICTIMS (of sexual harrasment) and an extramarital affair he could n not hide; not something someone wrote in some moldy newsletter 20plus years ago in his stead.

                Yet we have the likes of Almighty and other already salivating at the prosect of the “newsletter” thing being brought up. Talk about being delusional.

                1. Don’t get your panties in a bunch Mex. I’m not “salivating” about it. I’ll vote for Paul. I’m just not delusional enough to think it’s not going to be an issue if he hits frontrunner status. I don’t think it’s a big deal but most people are not going to study the issue enough to know that. The media will focus on the four statements you were talking about not on the rest. They will repeat them over and over until people get tired of hearing about it and just want the problem to go away which means Paul has to go away with it. I said earlier that I hoped all of you were right and I am wrong. Maybe we’ll find out and maybe we won’t. Look at the Palin “you can see Russia from my house” comment. She was asked a question about it sitting in her kitchen where they could see Russia from her house and she made that comment BUT THEN went on to answer the question. After the media and pop culture got through with her it though it became “common Knowledge” that that was her ENTIRE answer and therefore she is an idiot. Do you think the SNL skits or Comedy Central jokes on the Ron Paul newsletters are going to offer in depth analysis of the issue? No, it will be Ron Paul in a white hood talking about the federal reserve, and all of the sheep will repeat it all like it’s gospel. That’s how it works in the real world. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m on your side.

        4. Then why hasnt his previous opponents been able to use the newsletters to defeat him.

          Note: they have tried.

          1. I assume the voters in his House district have all heard about the newsletters before, been through all the explanations, charges and counter-charges, and so have been inoculated.

            1. But his house opponents made it a big deal back in the 90s and they got no traction.

              If its such a big deal, it would have been a big deal in those races. Especially since he wasnt an incumbent but was trying to come back to the house after being away more than a decade.

              1. That was in Texas. A part of Texas where he had delivered most of the babies.

                He had a personal connection with those people built over years of interactions that is lacking in the rest of the country.

                A black person who was or knew people who were Ron Paul’s patients would know that Ron wasn’t discriminating against them racially. Someone who never heard of him until this week? Different story.

          2. It’s an issue of informational surface tension. If the average non-hyperpartisan hears about a vague half-formed accusation about racism in a canidate he’s never heard of, it doesn’t make much of an impression. When the candidate goes mainstream and pulls numbers and they start jabbering about the newsletters on The Today Show, the average leftist goes “Ah, like every Rethuglican, he’s a racist! Bias confirmed!” and the average independent goes “Racist? OK, don’t want people thinking I’m a racist.” and then his attention span gutters out.

            Cain is a very good example of this. If the Armpit Minnesota Daily Gazette had spent every issue screaming their head off about the affairs/harassment at any point before the average American couch potato knew who he was, a collective yawn goes up. Can you see how Cain supporters using that to say “See! No one will cares when the National Media talks about it!” you would call them all deluded.

            1. Re: Sugarfree,

              When the candidate goes mainstream and pulls numbers and they start jabbering about the newsletters on The Today Show, the average leftist goes “Ah, like every Rethuglican, he’s a racist! Bias confirmed!” and the average independent goes “Racist? OK, don’t want people thinking I’m a racist.” and then his attention span gutters out.

              The Left has used the label “Racist” so many times it has lost any meaning, S.

              People salivating at the prospect of the mere mentioning of these newsletters could bring the Paul candidacy down are grasping at straws, it is not going to happen. It was a non-issue back in 2008 when Paul was a potential spoiler, it will be even more of a non-issue now that people will not take the “racist” epithet seriously.

              1. It wasn’t a non-issue in 2008. It completely took the wind out of his sails. The MSM dramatically reduced the frequency with which they interviewed him until after the 2008 election.

    2. I listened to the program yesterday and could have sworn it was the NPR host that brought op the letters right at the end.

    3. Yawn. Been there, done that.

      The newsletters are so 1996.

    4. Re: PaulR,

      Regarding the newsletters, for the thousandth time, it doesn’t matter to the media if Ron Paul actually wrote the letters or not, or whether is he is a racist or not.

      It DIDN”T matter to the media, P. The ONLY journalist that even got around to ask a question about them got a reasonable answer from Paul: His philosophical views are anathema to racism. And that was that.

      Did you EVER question why The New Republic gave the job to some punk kid instead of a more serious researcher?

      1. Okay! I give up!! You’re right, OM. I can see it now……

        NPR:

        Commentator: “Last night Ron Paul pulled an incredible victory and clinched the GOP nomination. Today with me is NYT Talking Head #3-a, and actorvist Alec Baldwin and the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Gentlemen, what are your views on Ron Paul’s hatred of the poor?”

        “We all think he is a Nazi, as all Republicans are, and will destroy the country. If he wins the White House, people will die. But we want to point out that he is definitely not a racist, unlike all the other Republicans. In fact, it simply isn’t an issue like it usually is in every election. You know, Republican=Racism?

        Commentator: “So you aren’t concerned with those incredibly spurious newsletters?”

        Guests: “What newsletters? Look, this isn’t an issue. The Democratic Party is above such smear tactics. Besides, the American people have seen through this so called mini-scandal and don’t care. Ron Paul may be evil, but he is not a racist. Let’s move on to more constructive topics, like an in depth objective analysis of his budgetary proposals.”

  7. As far as Boot goes, not sure what else you expect from the CFR. They represent the staus quo. It’s too bad they exert so much influence.

    1. I heard about the last 10 mins. of the broadcast and intend to listen to the whole thing. If there are many others out there like that Boot douchenozzle, I might as well tell my 5 y/o son and 9 y/o daughter to just go enlist now.

      1. Yeah, well research the Council on Foreign Relations some time. Not only are there a lot of Boot Duchnozzles out there they’ve held promonent positions in administrations on both sides of the aisle. That’s why the new new bosses are just like the old bosses when it comes to global occupation.

      2. I would love to see Boot drafted into a Marine rifle platoon and sent in with the first wave of where ever we invade next.

        1. I wish he’d go back to writing books. The Savage Wars of Peace and War Made New are two of my all time favorites.

  8. Morning Radio out of Boston (Tom and Todd) discussing the candidates this morning. Dismissing, as usual, Ron Paul as a “nut case”. OK, fine. Then they have a caller who defends Ron Paul, leading with, he wants to end the Fed and stop supporting Israel. When challenged, the caller gets agitated, his voice rises, and aha, see ! Ron Paul’s supporters are nut cases, too !

    1. Only nut-case crackpots participate in gab-radio.
      The real patriots are us blog commentators.

      1. Hehehe. But seriously, folks. Those of us who are generally not perceived as cranks by our fellow citizens should be pushing the “Love Paul, hate the Paultard” meme. Because most of the resistance to Paul I hear can be laid at the feet those zany Paultards — bless them for their energy and devotion, but they are very off-putting to many folk who might otherwise be receptive to Paul’s message.

  9. I heard Nick on the radio last night. The newsletters were brought up.

    1. but nice alt-text, makes me think of this
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJqlfMP-klM

  10. it is certainly true that, on a per capita basis, the U.S. spends about 4 times as much on military as does any one European country. However, each of those countries spends more on its military than does the U.S. for that country. The difference is, the U.S. spends for virtually every country while those countries basically spend for themselves. U.S. bases and personnel serve as tripwires to involve the U.S. in any regional conflicts. This can be good or bad for the host country – a U.S. air base in Spain, if used to host bombers attacking Iran, might bring down terrorist activity on Spain. On the other side of the equation, Spain gets a lot of money and jobs from of U.S. military presence.
    I think it reasonable for a candidate or president Paul to announce to NATO that virtually all U.S. troops will be withdrawn on a five year timetable and
    each country should prepare as it sees fit to provide for its own defense.

    1. I’m with you. They should also withdrawl from NATO. That’s another “tripwire” we don’t need. They can always form alliances as needed if National Security threats arise.

      1. I don’t mind close ties with Europe. The West should, generally speaking, be aligned on most foreign policy issues. But that’s like one tenth of what we’re doing today.

        1. I strongly disagree. If by “the West” you meant the Western Hemisphere I would agree, however. In my opinion, the European ius sanguinis mentality never mixes well with (North and South) American ius soli.

          1. Well, Europe is mostly liberal, quasi-market, so they’re going to be natural allies on many issues. But not all.

          2. I do think in the long term the ‘West’ will, culturally, seperate much like the Roman empire did. We are seeing that now. Even with all the statism that plauges our part of the world it still is a veritable libertarian hotbed compared to much of western europe.

            1. I agree, but they’re still more like us and aligned with us than most of the rest of the world.

              I do expect, if the EU dissolution continues as forecast, that we’ll be more aligned with Eastern Europe, with the traditional exception of the UK.

    2. I agree with what you’re saying, and have to wonder why we need “tripwires”? We have, what(?) 11 carriers, countless surveillance satellites, etc. Hardly anyone is asking these questions. It’s depressing as fuck. I think Ross Perot was correct when he said that most of this mess is left over from the days of sailing ships. Confronting 21st century problems with a 19th century mindset. There’s a real recipe for success.

    3. I wouldn’t go so far as pulling all our troops over seas. I would pull the majority and then leave a few well placed naval installations for our navy.

  11. So who gave the photo to whom?

    1. Yeah, that’s a pretty sweet pic.

    2. The star gave it to the fan

      1. Naa, the politician gave it to the politician.

          1. Re: rather,

            they fucked too?

            They’re not librarians, so don’t get all wet just yet.

    3. That’s Reagan’s handwriting.

  12. I guess you didn’t talk about his racist newsletters.

    But, don’t worry, if Paul gains traction, the media will do it for you.

    1. What is this “Ron Paul”?

    2. Except, you know, that they did.

    3. Re: Colin,

      But, don’t worry, if Paul gains traction, the media will do it for you.

      As they did a great job exposing these racists to destroy their careers… right?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edbqajD8IWU

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YocTu9hywZA

      The media sure got them, right?

      Disclaimer: I believe Reid is an asshole and Biden a fool, but not dyed-in-the-wool racists.

  13. GOLD! Burn all your worthless fiat paper money and get some GOLD! I’ll fix the economy by getting us on the GOLD standard! Nevermind it’s kooky and straight out of 1890, never mind it would cause a world wide depression, GOLD is the way to go!

    Burn all your paper fiat FRN notes! They’re worthless! You need GOLD! And don’t give me none of that free silver at a 10:1 ratio, either, that’s pussy stuff, we need GOLD!

    1. Oh, and I’d also surrender to Iran and let them have as many nukes as they want. I’m sure Ahmadenijad would love to sit down for some tea and talk about Rothbardian libertarianism! He seems like a reasonable fellow. The Iranians are mad at us because of what we did, not who we are. It’s America’s fault.

      Also, GOLD!

      1. Until the Iranians have a nuclear stockpile approaching that of the former Soviet Union, they aren’t a first strike threat. Against the US, at least, which is all that actually, you know, matters.

        1. I really just wish one of these guys would answer these debate questions about Israel with “I’m running for President and Commander in Chief of the Unites States not of Israel” It seriously pisses me off that every four years our presidential candidates have to declare their allegience to Israel. Fuckin’ bullshit.

        2. As long as we don’t mind losing a city and the Iranians are not nuts, that is true. But those are hardly sure things.

          1. As long as we don’t mind losing a city and the Iranians are not nuts, that is true. But those are hardly sure things.

            First, it is an scientifically proven fact that Iran’s mullahs are bat-shit insane. Secondly, they would never do anything so mundane as taking out one city with a nuke. They would enlist a few “brave” shaheed to covertly fly a plane into American airspace and explode their nuke in the upper atmosphere, causing an EMP blast that would knock out most of our electrical grid.

            The ensuing chaos and riots would do the rest.

            1. Nah. That’s too smart.

              More likely scenario: Iran actually builds a few working nukes. For whatever reason, the Quds nutters get their mitts on one. It is infiltrated into a civilized city somewhere (Tel Aviv? New York? Does it really matter?).

              It goes off. Iran denies having anything to do with it. And says we can’t prove it anyway.

              1. And then we rain down hellfire and almost obliterate their civilization. The US has shown it has no qualms about using weapons of mass destruction if we feel its necessary. The only reason we didn’t nuke japan into the stone age was that we had already blown our entire stockpile of nukes, all two of them.

                1. A government that loses nukes to terrorists is just as dangerous as one that intentionally arms them. I’m sure that a terrifying US diplomat has explained that to Iran and Pakistan on a number of occasions.

              2. And the prez of the U.S. says, “Fine.” And then unleashes our Ohio-class missile sub fleet on every city where there are joyous celebrations over the destruction of New York. No more pilgrimages to Mecca for you, Muhammad.

              3. Nuclear war ain’t an episode of Law and Order.

    2. The time period during which world currencies have been decoupled from metals is actually quite brief, and the history of the performance of these currencies is extremely mixed, to say the least.

      Switching to a fiat currency was supposed to allow the mighty and wise state to eliminate the business cycle. How’s that working out for ya?

      If switching to a fiat currency didn’t eliminate the business cycle, then it didn’t perform as advertised and is a failures. I don’t favor an immediate switch back to a metals-based standard, but for the gold standard to be “kooky” it would seem to be necessary at a minimum for the adoption of fiat currency to have actually achieved what we were told it would achieve. And it didn’t do that.

      1. What killed the gold standard was World War I. The major economic powers were in such debt after it, they could no longer maintain the gold standard. They claimed to do so. But they really were not.

        1. They could still just do a one-off reset of the relationship between gold and currency.

      2. Fluffy, leave the poor guy alone. he thinks he’s helping. Don’t take away his feeling of accomplishment! 🙁

    3. Your tone is all wrong. Don’t burn the fiatskis. Exchange it for Au/Ag while you still can. ‘Tis a good week to stock up since the capital-deficient are liquidating.

      When it’s impossible to buy Au/Ag with fiatski, first use it as TP. Then burn it, outside of course.

      1. Indoors. I’ll have to heat my mansion with something after I burn all the available orphans and poor people for warmth.

    4. never mind it would cause a world wide depression

      [citation needed] (Pauly Krugnuts doesn’t count, by the way.)

    5. Re: Imbecile who knows nothing of economics,

      never mind it would cause a world wide depression,

      I don’t understand that economic analysis – WHY would it cause a world-wide depression?

  14. Prepare for the Ron Paul Media Orgy . . . the second Paul leads in any poll, expect the hit-jobs, hand-wringing, fascination and what will prove to be almost thorough disdain from conservative talking heads. They’ll be forced to eat their “Anyone one of these candidates would be better than Obama” tripe. They will not be able to stomach Paul’s foreign policy approach – anything short of “America . . . fuck yeah!” is worthy of dismissal and destruction in their eyes.

    1. Absent the election of Paul, the Complete Disintegration of the Republican Party would be a nice consolation prize.

      1. Hear, hear! I think that is going to happen no matter the result – if Paul wins, the neo-cons will bail. If Paul loses, the libertarians bail. It’s a losing proposition for the GOP no matter how you cut it – and that’s wonderful, fantastic, very good thing.

        1. Libertarians are what? 5% of the vote on a great year? The muddled headed independents will determine this election like they do every year.

          1. small l libertarians constitute anywhere from 10-20% of the voting public. Let’s say it’s 15%. Two thirds of this number (10) usually vote for Republicans. So, a reliable 10% of the voting public is libertarian, and inclined to vote Republican. If that 10% turns their back on the Republicans, they are screwed.

            1. Turns their back where? Paul is the only viable libertarian third party candidate. And he has said repeatedly he will not run. Without a viable third party candidate from the right to split the vote, Obama has no chance of winning re-election absent a miracle economic turnaround.

              Do you really think libertarians are going to vote for Obama? And no Libertarian candidate has ever gotten more than one or two percent.

              You are deluded.

              1. No they will not vote for Obama, but they will vote for Paul or Johnson – one of those two are going to run independent, sans a Paul nomination. Some (many) will sit on their hands and stay home. In fact, that’s the greater probability – that the libertarians simply say “fuck it” and truly give up.

                1. Paul is not running. He has said over and over again he is not. And he is not lying. If he ran as a third party, it would kill his son’s career. And he wont’ do that.

                  And no one knows or cares who Johnson is. Johnson can’t get above 1% in the Republican primary. He is not a viable third party candidate.

                  Look, big L libertarians are a small minority. They could only tip the balance in a really close election. Even if they give up, no one will care. That is just reality.

                  1. I am not talking about big L libertarians – I am talking about the small l types who’ve constituted a small but vital part of the Republican voting bloc. If they abandon the GOP, whether by a third party candidate or by staying home, it screws the GOP.

                    1. The small l libertarians are not abandoning the GOP absent a viable third party run. It is just not happening. No one wants four more years of Obama other than concern trolls.

                    2. You can track the elections of the past XXX years by what the small l libertarians do. When they are excited, the GOP wins big, when they arent, the Dems win. When they are a little excited, you get Bush squeaking out a race.

                      Sometimes they are excited by the wrong guys, but that is beside the point. They arent going to be excited by Romney or Newt.

                    3. I can’t see many libertarians voting for Gingrich or his ilk – if they tried they’d probably invalidate their ballots with tears and vomit.

            2. This is exactly what happened to the first bush. The libertarians got fed up and either didn’t vote or went for Perot. Making Clinton the last president to win without a majority of the popular vote since the gilded age.

        2. Fuck the R’s.

          Also, fuck the D’s.

          Also, fuck California.

          That is all.

    2. I thought Paul’s policy WAS “America… Fuck yeah!” – Also, “Fuck Europe, they can buy there own planes”

  15. Max Boot and his friends are nostalgic for the Cold War. Probably because the Cold War was very good for the employment prospects of Max Boot and his friends.

    If no enemy can be found, then one must be invented. Even if it turns out to be a handful of incompetent Bedouin aristocrats.

    1. What I can’t believe is this idea that we’re somehow more threatened or at least as threatened by our opposition as we were during the Cold War. It’s so blatantly untrue that you have to question the motives of people making such suggestions.

      As a freeish society we’ve always been and always will be vulnerable to crazies. But those have historically been limited attacks. We can take some steps to try to forestall the worst of those, but an activist foreign/military policy isn’t the answer, unless we’re going to suddenly become willing to absolutely crush countries that harbor terrorists. That’s what the Romans finally did when they got tired of simply reacting to Jewish terror attacks. Which, incidentally, goes to show that meddling in the Middle East isn’t and hasn’t been worth it.

      1. And that is why terrorism is a bigger danger to Arabs and Muslims than it is to us. As long as it remains low level, you are right, we can tolerate it. But if they ever do pull off some really big attacks that kill hundreds of thousands, we will absolutely crush those nations.

        1. Well, our policies have pretty much guaranteed that there will be a truly catastrophic attack against America, with many more casualties than 9-11. Yes, then we will crush those nations – but at what cost? It’s not 1991 anymore – we are not on top of the world, able to do anything, anywhere without other nations responding. In short, America has fucked itself. We’ve laid a trap for ourselves that we have no choice but to walk into.

          1. “It’s not 1991 anymore – we are not on top of the world, able to do anything, anywhere without other nations responding.”

            Yes we are. If anything we are more powerful now than we were in 1991. We still have the same nuclear stockpile. But in addition we have many more precision weapons and stealth technologies than we did then. In 1991, the US crushed the Iraqi Army with four corps of armor. The largest armored formation since World War II. In 2003, they crushed a weaker but still huge Iraqi Army and conquered the entire country with three divisions or a little more than one corps.

            Destroying countries is easy. Rebuilding them is the hard part. But the next time we go back we won’t be interested in rebuilding them, so that won’t be a problem.

            1. But the next time we go back we won’t be interested in rebuilding them, so that won’t be a problem

              We won’t leave anything to rebuild, anything to rebuild with, or anybody to rebuild. If there is an attack that kills over 100K, we will make what the Romans did to Carthage look like amateur hour.

            2. Im not sure why we were interested this time.

            3. “But the next time we go back we won’t be interested in rebuilding them, so that won’t be a problem.” Says who? So long as there is a State Department and defense contractors, you better bet we’ll rebuild.

              1. No we won’t. We won’t have the money or the popular will.

                1. “We won’t have the money or the popular will.” That hasn’t stopped us before, why should it stop us now?

                  1. We have always had the money. And had lots of popular will. We stayed in Iraq for 8 years. And not a single election ever turned on the issue.

                    1. “We have always had the money”. Really? So the wars in Iraq were not directly financed on debt? That’s interesting. Yes, eventually we’ll go broke – we are almost there. But even when we do, Empire America will act to finance, by debt or any other means, to destroy and rebuild. It’s what we do. Now, get rid of Empire America and return to the gold standard and THEN we won’t be able to destroy-rebuild without discretion.

                    2. No they were not directly financed by debt. We could have easily financed those wars and still had money left over the fund the rest of the government. The entire Iraq war wouldn’t fund a single 2009 porkulus or even half of TARP.

                      The whole “we are broke because of the wars” is just bullshit. It is not true. We are broke because of TARP, the stimulus, and our entitlement state.

                    3. Im not broke because of my cocaine habit, its the heroin that drained all the money.

                    4. And not a single election ever turned on the issue.

                      What do you think 2008 was all about?

              2. I don’t think the State Department will want to rebuild in an irradiated wasteland. Though I guess maybe it would be good practice for colonizing space or something. But regardless, we’d be repopulating the area with Americans, I suspect.

            4. Exactly. The hasn’t been a nation that holds the power that the US has had for thousands of years. Even the great powers of yesteryear might have had one of these points but not all or even most.

              The US has
              Undisputed control of the sea.
              Unrivalled GPS network
              One of the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world with the most advanced delivery system
              The best trained and equip military in the world
              the largest navy in the world, larger then the next 7 navies combined
              the largest economy
              the most adanced technology
              temendous natural resources
              a bevy of client states that usually will go along with what the United States wants.

              We are Rome and that is a problem. We are more like the Republic than the Imperials, but we are rapidly moving in that direction.

              1. We’re akin to the Middle Republic. We’re being trusted by other powers (within limits) to intervene, and we’re so far beyond anyone else in military power that there’s really no sign of this ending soon.

                If we start collapsing here, the economic hurt will likely happen well before the military feels the pain. That’s a bad recipe and could lead to a true empire rather than a proto-empire.

      2. The Romans (and their Byzantine successors) never got anything but grief and exhaustion from getting involved in Middle Eastern affairs. The region was a useless nest of vipers centuries before Islam showed up. What Islam did was add a layer of fanaticism and direct it outward.

        The reemergence of “political Islam” has been a trend for over 100 years, with the Salafist ideology going back another century before that. Yes, it’s a problem and probably will be for a long time to come. But not one on the level of the Cold War. And not one that can be resolved militarily, at least not without Roman-style butchery.

        If we had engaged in a Roman-style war with Iraq and Afghanistan, the result would have been the wholesale annihilation of the local adult male populations and new American settlements populated by soldiers and their new “war brides.” That’s why Gaul is now populated by Frenchmen and not Celts, and why the Roman war machine evolved from a defensive body to a self-perpetuating thing. It became profitable for politicians and soldiers alike.

        The GOP warhawks either profit directly from perpetual war on a foreign religious ideology or are too short-sighted to see the problem with it.

        1. The GOP warhawks either profit directly from perpetual war on a foreign religious ideology or are too short-sighted to see the problem with it.

          LOL. Because you always get to choose the wars you fight? That is what libertarians don’t get. You don’t get to choose peace or war. Your enemies make that choice for you. I would love to have peace with the Islamics. But too fucking bad. The Islamics don’t want peace with me.

          1. You and I aren’t that far apart on our foreign policy views. I’m not a “head in the sand” idealist when it comes to foreign policy.

            The problem is that the War on Terror has become an excuse for pervasive foreign interventionism and for the imposition of a police state right here in the USA.

            Ultimately, I think we have to make clear to foreign governments that it is suicidal to harbor those who commit terrorist acts against the USA. That was the original point of the Afghan war. What we can’t do anymore is (a) engage in nation-building nonsense or (b) get involved in every little dipshit conflict the world over.

            You’d think the Vietnam debacle would have taught us that, but we seem to have to relearn that lesson every generation.

            1. The mistake Bush made was that he framed Afghanistan and Iraq both as missions to create new societies there instead of punitive expeditions. By any rational standard, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been disasters for the Islamists. They have lost tens of thousands of their best fighters and much of their leadership. But what they have managed to do is keep the US from doing the impossible which is transform the societies. If the mission had just been, we are going to kick the Taliban out and punish them severely for harboring Bin Ladin, the mission would have been a success nine years ago. If the mission in Iraq had been “we are going to kick Hussein out of power and capture and try him and his leadership” We would have been out of Iraq and called it a success years ago.

              The problem is the goals. After Vietnam, you would think we would have figured out that we can’t make people fight for their own freedom. Either they do it themselves or they don’t do it at all.

              1. If the mission had just been, we are going to kick the Taliban out and punish them severely for harboring Bin Ladin, the mission would have been a success nine years ago. If the mission in Iraq had been “we are going to kick Hussein out of power and capture and try him and his leadership” We would have been out of Iraq and called it a success years ago.

                Exactly. Win and leave. I didnt want to be in Iraq, but if we had captured Hussein and left the next week [slight hyperbole], “mission accomplished” holds up.

                1. Iraq was not necessary, and had little to do with US national security.

                  There were few al Qaida in Iraq before the US invaded. Afghanistan would have been sufficient.

                  1. Except, that Iraq was never about al Qaida or terrorism. Bush’s neocon inspired strategy was to reform Iraq as a western style tolerant democracy to pressure radical Islam and Arab dictators.

                    It seems to have worked somewhat on the dictators, but radical Islam is moving in to replace them.

          2. You don’t get to choose peace or war.

            True for Afghanistan. But that has been the only non-voluntary conflict since WW2.

            EVERY other one, Iraq, Libya, Balkans, Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Lebanon, etc etc etc, have been by CHOICE.

            1. Well lets face it, most wars are wars of choice.

    2. …or mud farming goat shaggers. No, not the Irish.

  16. Dude thats just downright crazy when you think about it. Wow.

    http://www.AnonSurfing.tk

  17. Nick, you were also awesome on Monday’s RedEye, which I finally watched last night.

    I appreciate your warning that your hair is as deadly as The Jacket. Forewarned is forearmed – thanks again.

  18. Shit Max Boot is stupid.

  19. The country is worried, and Ron Paul is a refreshingly candid “true believer” with an answer. Slash government to the bone. Bring the troops home from everywhere. Scrap the Fed. Defend personal liberty. And go free market.

    Sounds like a good start, but I wouldn’t call a paltry one-trillion-dollar cut “slashing government to the bone”. Spending was a trillion dollars lower in FY2007 than it is now.

  20. More positive Ron Paul coverage by Nick! Is he trying to get Lew’s forgiveness?

  21. Donate to the campaign and help get a Ron Paul anthem to the top of the Billboard charts on 1/12/12. That’s right; it’s both a money bomb and a Music Bomb!

    http://musicbomb2012.weebly.com

  22. Max Boot is such a perfect name for a war socialist. I mean, Eternal Bootface would be better, but I’ll take what I can get.

    1. I’m showing my age, because I keep thinking about Max Headroom whenever I see his name.

  23. I can not believe that as superficial as Tom Ashbrook is, he hosts 2hr NPR program.

  24. I find it interesting that they have Max Boot on to comment on conservatism. He is a neo-conservative in every sense of the word. Max Boot is what’s called a chicken hawk. He written articles and books about the necessity of wars and specifically the way war can shape policy and influence nations around the world. Max was a journalist and now has written several books on this subject and is for the deployment of our military to engage in these “good fights” for the spread of American ideals (as he just stated on this NPR program) having never served in the military himself. That’s the chicken hawk in him. Willing to send our men and women to fight having never picked up a rifle and stood a post himself or, be willing to send his kids. Max is so good at writing articles and books, that he was noticed by the Council on Foreign Relations, and now works for them. From the website: The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher. With the content and context of what he writes, Max has a bright future ahead of him. Members of this organization include: Dick Cheney John Kerry Bill Clinton Al Gore Ronald Reagan George H. W. Bush Gerald Ford Richard Nixon John, David & Nelson Rockefeller Condolezza Rice Paul Wolfowitz Alan Greenspan Colon Powell Henry Kissinger and, Barack Obama Hillary Clinton John Edwards Chris Dodd Bill Richardson Mitt Romney Rudy Giuliani John McCain Fred Thompson Newt Gingrich among many others. As you read this list ask yourself how many of these people have publicly spoken for the continuance of the current wars (stay the course). Then, notice how many of them ran the 2008 Presidential race (democrat and republican). I ask if the CFR was hedging their bets. I am not quite screaming conspiracy, but you have to admit there is some amazing coincidences here.

  25. ISOLATIONIST: The author of this hit piece representing the statist propaganda legacy media has voluntarily chosen to use this term in order to identify himself/herself as a shill for the statist establishment. The reader may safely disregard the rest of the hit piece as one without any credibility whatsoever, given that said term has been refuted by RON PAUL and his supporters ad-infinitum ad-nauseum. For those who may be reading such a term for the first time, DR. RON PAUL is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST who favors free and unhindered trade and communication with ALL NATIONS and opposes the statist agression of MEDDLING into the affairs of other nations.

    Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. Since the statist propaganda legacy media continues to repeat this lie as
    often as possible, I am reminded of the big lie theory:

    “If you tell a lie often enough, some of the people who hear it will believe it.”

    The newspaper that publishes this, as well as the author, have now labeled themselves as part of this propaganda machine and, by doing so,
    lose any and all credibility.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.