Do you really believe that any “small fringe” discussing something like the federal reserve and the gold standard doesn’t have a basic understanding of the issue?

Of course it’s possible for the fringe to not understand it in the slightest. They make an ideological decision because they don’t like the federal government and have a strong desire for simple answers to complex problems. For one thing if the other major economies of the world don’t go along with a system resembling the old Bretton Woods agreement the results aren’t going to be even close to what Paul or his supporters think. If you want a basic unbiased article about it go here. You refer to how it was a hot button issue in the early days of the country. That was then. This is now. Repeat after me.

It is the 21st century, not the 18th.
Things have changed irrevocably whether I like it or not.
The Constitution is great, but not magic and the founders were not gods.
Ron Paul is not the second coming of Jesus Christ.

It is the 21st century, not the 18th.
Things have changed irrevocably whether I like it or not.
The Constitution is great, but not magic and the founders were not gods.
Ron Paul is not the second coming of Jesus Christ.

It is the 21st century, not the 18th.
Things have changed irrevocably whether I like it or not.
The Constitution is great, but not magic and the founders were not gods.
Ron Paul is not the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Keep going for a few days and it might soak in but I doubt it. It rarely does for ideologues.

All other candidates DENY LIBERTY.

Ron Paul is the greatest candidate I’ve ever seen. Consistent for 30 years. No flip flops. We are done with WAR, we want a real currency, we want peace, we want the welfare-state for the military industrial complex to END, we want to fix America and stop policing the world and to stop the authoritarian oppression here NOW.

Here is what the US Government without Ron Paul in charge has done to us:

- 9 trillion in debt
- 850 billion trade deficit
- War in Iraq
- War in Afghanistan
- Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda alive
- Fomenting War with Iran
- 12.25 trillion M3 money supply, and expanding (massive inflation)

Ron Paul’s record is crystal clean perfect and consistent. He takes no money from anyone but people and constituents. He is as pure as they come.

One of my favorite quotes about Dr. Paul, “You’re working for the most honest man in Congress.” That was John McCain speaking to Kent Snyder in 1988.

To comment on a small part of your last post however:

“Eliminating the Federal Reserve and establishing a gold standard only appeals to another small fringe, most of whom don’t really understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of having one and not having one.”

Do you really believe that any “small fringe” discussing something like the federal reserve and the gold standard doesn’t have a basic understanding of the issue? I think you would be hard pressed to find people who even know what the federal reserve does, let alone have an opinion on it. Most of this “small fringe” you refer to are the hardcore libertarians and consistent free market economists. Ron Paul’s arguments come from a strong intellectual tradition. Despite his hypocrisy, even former fed-chief and demigod Alan Greenspan holds virtually identical views (http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html).

Don’t forget, a central bank was a hot button issue in the early history of the United States. The fact that people are even discussing it again makes it an exponentially bigger issue than it was 4 years ago. Furthermore, the rapid devaluation of the dollar could very well make this a hot-button issue again.

Learn how outside economic and foreign policy events just might elect Ron Paul.
http://www.ronaldholland.com/presidentronpaul.htm This is a two part article on how current events outside the political process could elect Ron Paul as President.

Greg

http://www.ronpaultime.com/

We have the bill of rights. thats the only thing the federal government should enforce inside the states. right now, in the communist people’s republic of California, I can barely own guns but it says I can in the BoR. Both the federal government AND state governments TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS NOW, how can it be WORSE when Ron Paul stops the federal government from raping your rights!?!?!?!

“But Ron Paul doesn’t care if the government controls you so long as it’s the state government instead of the federal government doing it.”

I’ve never read or heard Ron Paul state that he “doesn’t care if the government controls you so long as it’s the state government instead of the federal government.” Perhaps you have.

But you’re right about that difference between federalism and libertarianism. Ron Paul espouses federalism, based on how the constitution is written. The U.S. Constitution allows states to establish constitutions and laws that are not libertarian, so long as they don’t violate the U. S. Constitution (equal protection, due process, full faith and credit, etc.)

So there are two questions here: How does the U. S. Constitution currently define and limit government, and what political philosophy would each citizen prefer as a goal. Or: what is legal, and what is desirable.

“What is legal” is fairly apparent in the simple text of the constitution (without resorting to self-serving sophistry or judicial activism). But various interests can, and often have, twisted simple concepts like regulating “commerce…among the several states” to mean commerce within a state. Ron Paul is running on a straightforward reading of the document (constructionalism). Congress is explicitly constrained by Article 1, Section 8, and other controls like Amendments 10 and 14.

“What is desirable” is a different matter. If we choose to “preserve, protect, and defend Constitution of the United States”, federalism allows each citizen a proportionally stronger voice locally as opposed to federally. If we choose to ignore the constitution, then we can pursue any political philosophy from anarchy to fascism.

Personally, I support following the constitution (including using Article 5 to amend it when there is overwhelming support to do so), and I’m interested in living and working in states that follow libertarian philosophies.

How about you? Do you support abiding by the constitution? If so, what’s your philosophical preference?

We are like the bastards that waited for 9/11 to submit the Patriot Act. Why would the Libertarians fail to advance their agenda now, unless they don’t really mean what they say. If you claim to be a Libertarian, and you can’t pull the lever for Paul. You are a liar. In fact when I meet Libertarians, I ask them if they are voting for Paul. If they are not, I might spend a second finding out why, but if they come off as insincere, I will try to get them fired from their job.

Please see http://www.ballotbase.org/

END bipartisanship….repair America….Vote Ron Paul.

Screw the labels – they only serve to segregate a candidate. How many registered Republicans will not vote for Ron Paul because of the Libertarian moniker? If it is one, that is one too many. Lose the label.

“But do note…he’s not pulling people toward Republican politics. It’s Libertarianism within a Republican vessel, and is that sustainable?”

You bring up an interesting assertion. To address it, I guess we would have to be able to define Republican politics. Since this has been a somewhat fluid concept over the last several decades, we have options as to where to draw those lines.

Does Paul adhere to the Republican Party Platform? Since parts of that platform seem to be an advertisement and resume for George W. Bush, the answer would probably be “not entirely”.

Does Paul adhere to the small-government, paleo-conservative, Goldwater type of Republican politics? Yes.

Is Paul a Neo-Conservative? Most definitely not.

I’d venture to say that it’s sustainable based somewhat on how many Republicans still support Neo-Conservative values and where they’ve taken the country. I’m not sure there’s an accurate way to measure that other than to count delegates at the conventions.

As to whatever might rhyme with “3rd Party”, the best I can do is “obscured heartily”, which is as imperfect as the option itself. One of the reasons that Paul has repeatedly given for passing on that option is the bias in favor of only two parties built into the process. I have seen (and been part of) 3rd Party efforts that spent so much money and effort on getting on the ballot in all 50 states, that little was left for actual campaigning.

Paul was a Republican before he ran as a Libertarian, and has been a Republican for 10 terms. His message actually fits well with the small-government versions of both classic conservatives and classic liberals (depending on what we’re talking about conserving or liberating). This is the root of his big-tent appeal.

In the end, voters define parties, not the other way around. Attempts to have the tail wag the dog (no cinematic references intended) only result in turning bigger tent parties into smaller tent parties. Neo-Conservatives seem to be okay with a pup-tent, as long as they can keep convincing the remaining Republicans that the federal government – while ineffective, inappropriate, and unconstitutional for domestic entitlements at American taxpayers’ expense – is just the ticket when it comes to international welfare and enforcement at American taxpayers’ expense. If it turns out that disenfranchised small-government conservatives can join fiscally conservative liberals and independents under a single flag, then the people may well redefine the parties yet again.

Bottom line: Paul’s message could well be the common ground that’s been missing from an increasingly polarized America for decades.

What Libertarians ought to do, is take over the Republican party, just as the Evangelicals did. Hijack it.