|Killer Joe |
The guy that heads the group that is using Ron as a spokesman was fined .5M by the SEC for selling reports full of bogus investment advice.
Seems like a natural pairing.
What's your source for that KJ? I can't find it.
Worried about losing your money? Just give it to me. No more money to worry about.
|Void 71 |
"Don't let that brown prick in the White House take your money and give it to rich Wall Street jews. I want summa dat cheese." -- Ron Paul, In his mind while he was recording this video.
NO, YOU FOOL, FIAT CURRENCY, GOVERNMENT SPENDING, AND PRIVATE BANKING INTERESTS WILL SAVE US! Just like they saved Greece!
Anyway, as Killer Joe indicates, the website this links to was set up by a shady organization called Stansberry Research, LLC. According to the following website, Stansberry Research now specializes in the creation of "viral videos", such as this one, apparently.
It's a shame that Dr Paul gave a lecture with these people; from a strictly rhetorical standpoint (there's that word again; Rhetoric Week, anyone?), it was a bad call on his part. However, it's important to note what is r̲e̲a̲l̲l̲y̲ going on here: I watched the video, and at no point does Ron Paul endorse any investment tips or services offered by Stansberry Research. In fact, contrary to what my esteemed colleague Mr Killer Joe seems to be implying, the possibly fraudulent services of Stansberry Research LLC aren't even mentioned, by either party, during the entirety of the interview (yes, I listened to the whole thing. The transport lines around Yale are notoriously slow). The interview lasts about a half hour, and it is a fairly standard Ron Paul lecture, touching on many of the same arguments which he's been presenting in various places as of late. It is only afterwards, at the thirty-minute mark, once the interview has concluded and Dr Paul has departed for his next speaking engagement, that "the shill" begins.
Why is this distinction important? Well, I feel like I shouldn't really have to point this out, but I will anyway: there is a world of difference between arguments that are being made, and the venues and contexts in which those arguments are presented ("ad hominem"). What Dr Paul says i̲s̲n̲'̲t̲ really that crazy! Most of the points he raises are inarguably correct, and while I myself would dispute the sheer magnitude of his doom-and-gloom predictions, his observation that the US currency supply has (in true fiat fashion) grown over 400% in just the last few years, is both unexpected and unsettling.
I know some people here are pro-Ron Paul, some people here are decidedly anti-Ron Paul, and others (such as myself) are happily on the fence. We are all individuals with our own thoughts and agendas, so the reasons people have - whether it be for loving Dr Paul, or hating and fearing him - are not always clear. With that in mind, I pose to you all the following question:
--- Which points that Dr Paul brings up do you disagree with, and why? ---
Do you disagree with his radical anti-war stance? With his libertarian attitude towards the de-criminalization of drugs? With his unwavering support of civil liberties, or his opposition to the banking industry and predatory crony-capitalist globalization? Is it that he is a Christian, or that his voice is kinda funny and old-man-like? I myself disagree with him on the gold standard - which I could get to later, if anyone cares to hear my own rebuttal. But which of these things do YOU disagree with? Or, conversely, which do you love, and why?
The God of Biscuits
His bullshit, fringe "theory" of Austrian economics tells me all I've ever needed to know.
He gets no credit for his "good libertarian" policies, as he caucused with the people most vociferously opposed to them. Legalizing pot and being anti-war (in a simplistic, turtle-like way) are just window dressing to attract idiot 20 somethings into voting republican.
Also he looks like a Gnome.
Right wing libertarianism sounds good on the surface, but if you dig a little deeper, you discover just how mind bogglingly stupid it is at its core.
Ron Paul isn't so much against war as he is against publicly funded war. If the Koch Brothers owned the entirely of United States as their own personal private property, they could wage war, rip up the constitution and generally be as fascist as they want to be without violating any principals of right wing libertarianism - because in right wing libertarianism, private property rights are sacred and absolute.
Don't like the United States of Koch? Find another another corporate fiefdom that better suits you needs.
Can't find the right corporate dictatorship? Start your own, lazybones!
And don't even get me started on "Austrian Economics." Yowsa!
I've heard all the standard rebuttals. If you've got a fresh one, lay it on me.
I like Ron Paul when he isn't talking about gold or the free market, but I hate him for not pulling out the night his son was conceived. His son isn't a fraction of the man he is. He's a company man through and through.
Mr SolRo's reaction is typical, but somewhat puzzling to me, as Dr Paul has often spoken out quite strongly against both America's Israeli policy and the Western media's portrayal of Russian imperialism - the two issues which define SolRo's contributions to this website.
Mr of Biscuits - and that is what, precisely? (side issue: I am very bothered by the claim, in ANY context, that "such-and-such piece of information is all one ever needs to know". Epistemology and the search for truth never "ends" at any one fact or revelation)
Master Ashtar - again, why? It is not enough to say that "the gold standard is pants-on heads crazy", there must be some rationale behind this statement, a reason which I know you (at least) are both intelligent and mature enough to elaborate upon. As stated before, I disagree with Dr Paul's position on the gold standard, although I suspect that my reasons for doing so are quite different from your own. Now I don't expect much from my good friend Mr Dumpster nor my less-good but nonetheless adequate friend Mr SolRo, yet I do think that you of PoEple could contribute something here. Please, help me to understand your position and your thoughts.
I forgot to mention the fact that he wears fake eyebrows. There's something deeply narcissistic about that.
Mr Smitty - "because in right wing libertarianism, private property rights are sacred and absolute. "
Do you have sources to support this claim? All of the "right wing libertarian" writers which I have encountered (by which I am guessing you mean Ron Paul et al) make it clear that property rights, *as well as* life and happiness rights, are sacred and absolute. While they are very concerned with property rights (and aren't you, also?), there's never been any indication that they wish to "wage war" or "rip up the Constitution" (which I am assuming, based upon your tone, you would consider to be a bad thing. Am I correct?).
It's also a mischaracterization to paint them as corporate-anarchists; they are not. In fact, one of the biggest sticking points between right-wing libertarians and certain other sorts of libertarian is their insistence on retaining the state for the sake of maintaining law and order - to protect citizens against various forms of coercive violence, such as rape, murder, theft, and fraud. This is *all* they want the state to do, of course, but such a state would have more than enough Constitutional authority to prevent dystopic corporate wars - which actually DO happen today, and are really quite common, thanks to our bloated, Constitution-ignoring, aggressively un-libertarian state. (remember the war in Iraq, which right-wing libertarians like Dr Paul opposed?)
The IS-OUGHT problem always makes discussions with right wing libertarians difficult. I'm not claiming you directly support the problematic outcomes of right wing libertarianism, I'm just pointing out that they are problematic. These problems are then further exacerbated by dismantling and defunding agencies traditionally tasked with mitigating these kinds of negative outcomes.
If you dismantle public power, what do you think will fill the vacuum? My guess would be corporations, powerful religious organizations and/or paramilitary outfits. Again, not saying you support these problematic outcomes, just pointing out that they are problematic.
Say I started a movement called Smittyism, designed to set natural gas free. I encourage everyone to turn up the burners on their range without ignition until all the gas has been set free. Free gasses! Free people!
I ask for criticism, at which point you come to me and say that, in essence, I support carbon monoxide poisoning and burning homes. I vehemently denounce your arguments as specious lies and straw-man propaganda against freedom. I categorically OPPOSE burning homes and carbon monoxide poisoning with every fiber of my being! And it's true. I have never once advocated for asphyxiation or city wide fires. I'm a champion of freedom!
Change Smittyism to Libertarianism and you now know what it feels like to argue with libertarians.
Libertarians SHOULD be ripping up the Constitution since it's the document that laid the groundwork for the strong central government that does things they don't like. Libertarianism is far more compatible with the states' rights-focused Articles of Confederation.
Rodents of Unusual Size
But on the good side, Ron Paul is one of the only ones who tried to stop our idiot government from becoming a vassal nation to China. Which is pretty much happening and he warned that getting ourselves into enormous debt would result in financial dependence, as well as loss of influence and he warned against war from the very beginning. Which makes him one of the only politicians to not be a warmongering hypocrite, so good on him.
His son fell far from the tree, and then some.
Another observation: I've noticed that the term "free market" crops up very often in discussion like this, often with vague negative connotations. Yet this term is rarely defined (particularly in popular discourse), and as a result, different speakers often use the term to signify very different things! This is obviously problematic.
So, how do you define "free market"?
I'm not sure the negative connotations are vague at all.
I'll get back to you on the gold standard thing.
For me, there are invisible scare quotes around "free market" because I don't take the term seriously. It's an imaginary thing that toadies of the oligarchy claim will solve all our problems if only we allow business owners to dump mercury in playgrounds. There are no free markets. Markets are inherently unstable and can only self-regulate in very limited ways. If we got rid of all big gubbmint red tape, we'd go back to the gilded age of boom and bust cycles, monopolies, children working in coal mines, and third world wealth inequality.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a communist. Markets are great at doing certain things. But, they need strong boundaries and regulation that they cannot generate themselves. They need this even in order to remain "free" and not degenerate into monopolies or cartels. How to effectively regulate them is a legitimate debate. But we can't have that debate because the whole right half of the country has decided to ignore history and economics and make "government" some sort of hate-fetish.
That is, the real question is how to effectively regulate, not whether we need "more" or "less" regulation. It's like taking your car to a mechanic and having her tell you that your problem is that you've got too much car.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|