Ron Paul’s stunning antiwar performance: Iran threat recalls Iraq, ‘a useless war that killed 1 million Iraqis’ and 8000 Americans

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 209 Comments

I see that Reuters is characterizing Ron Paul’s anti-war outcry in the Republican debate last night as an outburst and is saying that his views could alienate Republicans. Well I found his performance riveting. It was a great moral stand and establishes Ron Paul as the Gene McCarthy of this battle, the antiwar outlier.

Who else is condemning the use of drones? Who else is condemning the Patriot Act? Who else is talking about our endless wars? Who else is condemning the runup to an Iran war? Who else is saying that terrorists attack us because we’re bombing their countries?

Below I have typed up his dramatic statements last night against “endless war” and the ramping up of war against Iran being just like what happened with that useless war against Iraq, which killed 1 million Iraqis. No I can’t stand his position on global warming, that could be a dealbreaker for me. And his libertarian economic ideas, at a time when the income disparity is so huge, but this was a great performance. Again, who else says this stuff? Who contests the belief that Iran has a bomb? Who stands up for Muslims around the world? Who understands Iran’s desire to counter the saber-rattling? Who says that Israel has 300 nukes?

Paul’s stance is especially intriguing given the mainstream’s dismissal of him: Chris Matthews’s statement on his show last night dismissing Ron Paul as an “isolationist.” Matthews also fulminated against that “damned war,” Iraq, but said Iran was a horse of a different color: not a regional threat, but a global threat. So Matthews, whom I regard as a liberal eastcoast establishment partisan, is drinking Democratic Party/lobby Koolaid on the Iran threat. Fascinating.

Here are my notes from Paul’s stellar answers on foreign policy:

Fox Moderator: What about if you had solid intelligence that Iran was about to get a nuclear weapon, but you say you’d remove the sanctions on Iran. Aren’t you running left of President Obama on this?

“But I’d be running with the American people because it would be a much better policy… For you to say there’s some scientific evidence, and maybe in a year they might have a weapon, there’s a lot more evidence that they don’t have it. There’s no U.N. evidence of that happening. … There is no difference from 2003. You know what I really fear about this. It’s another Iraq coming, it’s war propaganda coming on… To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president who will over react, and we will soon bomb Iran.

“It would make more sense, if we lived through the Cold War, which we did, with 30,000 missiles pointed at us, we ought to really sit back and look and think and not jump the gun and think we’re going to be attacked. That’s how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much in Iraq.”

Questioner persists. You’re running left of Obama.

“Yes. All we’re doing is promoting their desire to have it. Ehud Barak the defense minister for Israel said that if he were in Iran he would probably want a nuclear weapon too. Because they’re surrounded– for geopolitical desires. So that’s an udnerstanding…

“How do we treat people with a nuclear weapon? With a lot more respect. What did we do with Libya? We talked with them, we talked them out of their nuclear weapon, and then we killed him…. Nuclear weapons are loaded over there. Pakistan, India, Israel has 300 of them. We have our ships over there. We have to keep this in the proper context. We don’t need another war!”

What about Iran’s threat to close the Straits of Hormuz? 

Paul, bridling: “The plans are on the book, all they talk about is when are we, the west, going to bomb Iran? They don’t have a nuclear weapon– why wouldn’t they try to send out some information, you know if you come and bomb us, we might shut the straits of Hormuz down. So the president already is wisely stepping back on the sanctions, because it’s going to be an economic calamity if you take all the oil out of Europe….

“We have 12,000 diplomats. We ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while.”

Ron Paul is then baited by Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. She says Iran is the equivalent of al qaeda and wants to spread jihad across the world. “I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one I just heard from Ron Paul. We know without a shadow of the doubt that Iran will … use it to wipe our ally Israel off the face fo the map and they will use it against the United States of America…”

Paul: “Obviously I would like to see a lot less nuclear weapons. I don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I would like to reduce them, because there would be less chance of war. But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same? This is dangerous talk. Yeah there are some radicals. They don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous… They come here and they explicitly explain it to us. The CIA has explained this to us. They come here and want to do us harm because we’re bombing them…

“Why were we flying a drone over Iran? Why do we have to bomb so many countries? Why do we have 900 bases in 1130 countries and we’re totally bankrupt. How are we going to take care of the people? I think this wild goal is to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing. The danger is really us overreacting. and we need a strong national defense and only go to war when there’s a declaration of war… [instead of] starting these wars so often….”

Bachmann again speaks of an avowed madman wanting to wipe Israel out.

Paul: “There is no UN report that said that. It’s totally wrong on what you just said. That is not true. They produced information that led you to believe that.  But they have no evidence. There has been no enrichment.”

Bachmann: “If we agree with that, the United States people could be at risk–“ 

Paul: “If she thinks we live in a dangerous world, she ought to think back to when I was drafted in 1962 with the nuclear missiles in Cuba. And Kennedy calls Khrushchev and talks to him and talks him out of a nuclear excahnge. You’re trying to dramatize this… we have to treat Iran like we’ve treated Iraq and kill a million Iraqis and 8000 some Americans have died since we’ve gone to war.

“You cannot solve these problems with war… Get them over with, instead of this endless fighting and this endless attitude that we have enemies all around the world…”

209 Responses

  1. Annie Robbins
    December 16, 2011, 12:57 pm

    fantastic coverage phil, thank you

    • Philip Weiss
      December 16, 2011, 1:15 pm

      thanks annie. all i did was sit in front of tv and take some notes. but it’s amazing that no one seems to be covering this in its entirety today. so journalism is like what woody allen said, so much of life is just showing up.
      as you prove! phil

      • Mooser
        December 16, 2011, 1:25 pm

        Ron Paul-
        “Why do we have 900 bases in 1130 countries and we’re totally bankrupt. How are we going to take care of the people?

        “How are we going to take care of the people”? Some libertarian!

      • dumvitaestspesest
        December 16, 2011, 1:45 pm

        do not pick words out of his mouth.
        He can’t fix overnight things, that were destroyed by decades.
        He isn’t a miracle worker, a Supermen.
        He doesn’t promises miracles anyway ,only sound, soilid ideas,offers, solutions.
        Sometimes I even wonder, why some people even bother to do something good ,if majority doesn’t even give a damn about listening to them, let alone understanding and supporting them.

      • Mooser
        December 16, 2011, 3:32 pm

        dumvitaestspesest, if Ron Paul wants to “take care of the people” I’ll be first in line applauding him. But our present system of war using military contractors to privatize the profit and our soldiers to socialise the risk is a triumph of the kind of capitalism libertarians support. You don’t see any conflict there?

      • dumvitaestspesest
        December 16, 2011, 4:17 pm

        Captitalism is long gone from America, mon cheri Mooser.
        It is a history. Now we have corporationism/plutocracy/oligarchy/corrupted state, that resembles, more and more, Stalinist’s Russia, than any true captitalistic state.
        Many states of Europe were once also capitalistic, now they are being eaten alive by Euro-Monster of their own making, which metamorphoses rapidly ,more and more ,into IV Reich.

      • dumvitaestspesest
        December 16, 2011, 4:58 pm

        and one extra reamark.
        In the USA ( and in most of the current world for that matter) , state/federal government, media ,corporations, banks are just the different devices of the same Power.
        They are interconnected, corrupted, supporting each other.
        Sort of a monolith, one party system. “Manus manum lavat”.
        One hand washes the other. We have tons of laws and regulations, few parties, many organisations etc. But in reality, nothing is changed or altered, if it does not get approval of the Almighty, one party, interconnected system
        ( government, media, corporations, banks).

      • stevieb
        December 16, 2011, 5:28 pm

        I generally agree with what you wrote. But I don’t think Ron Paul would get the nomination – even if he won the vote…

      • homingpigeon
        December 16, 2011, 5:31 pm

        Habibi Mooser you have described exactly the type of capitalism that libertarians OPPOSE, not support. We use this turn of phrase (“privatizing profits and socializing costs and losses”) to describe the imperialism and corporatism of the status quo. In true free enterprise the government, meaning the taxpayer, would not pay for armies or mercenaries to protect investments abroad, nor would it subsidize any enterprise nor would it protect any enterprise from competition.

        Closer to my heart, and to yours, would be the concept that the state does not have the right to choose friends and enemies for its citizens, and further does not have the right to force all taxpaying citizens to subsidize those friends and harm those enemies.

      • dumvitaestspesest
        December 16, 2011, 5:49 pm

        Very good points. You should write more about it.
        State suppose to help its citizens to flourish and grow.
        Instead ,we have a situation where State ,( and its allies –media, corporations, banks etc) grows and flourishes, and its citizens fall more and more in the poverty ,trying to cover the costs of carrying the parasatic state and its allies on its back.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 16, 2011, 6:27 pm

        are you making the argument for un-subsidized capitalism? If so, can you name one developed country where this kind of capitalism has existed?

      • G. Seauton
        December 16, 2011, 7:34 pm

        Capitalism is not dead at all. Late-stage capitalism is capitalism nonetheless. The fact that it tends to manifest itself under authoritarian and even fascistic state cover does not negate its capitalist nature. Nor does the fact that capital has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of large transnational corporations and ultra-rich finance capitalists.

        Nor does the existence of the EU negate the existence of capitalism within EU borders. The EU bureaucrats represent capitalist interests; the fact that the EU manages its interests badly makes no difference. Nothing guarantees that capitalist managers will make perfect decisions. Actually, it’s the degenerate state of late-stage capitalism that tends to multiply the weaknesses of the system, which are often compensated for by increasing authoritarianism. We see perfect examples of this tendency in the current economic crisis and the extreme police repression of protestors, most of whom are the victims of the crisis.

      • Theo
        December 17, 2011, 1:32 pm

        D-Vita

        Metamorphosing into IV Reich

        That is not a very intelligent comment!

        Europe lived over its means for many years, just like the US did, and have fiscal problems. However, the Euro-zone have 17 different countries with that many ministerpresidents and central banks, so they have it not as easy as we have. Try to convince all those diffrent nations with many different languages and cultures, when Washington cannot do it with a common language and only one government.

        Germany is the biggest economy in the EU and it pays the largest share of the costs, therefore it is natural they also have a major voice in the decisions.
        This stupid new reich talk comes from the british who are jealous of the growing economic and political might of Germany and are trying to cause trouble. Recently Britain lost an EU decision 26 – 1 favoring Germany, meaning either GB will stop causing problems or just can leave the EU.

        Not the Euro is in trouble, but the US dollar. During 1963 I got 4.8 swiss frankli for a dollar, today you get aroung 0.75, roughly one sixth!
        The same goes for the Euro and other currencies.

      • Duscany
        December 19, 2011, 4:15 am

        If a Paul administration were to start closing some of the 900 bases we have in around the world, quit bombing other countries and refuse to start any new wars, we wouldn’t have worry about military contractors getting rich or our soldiers shedding blood. Military contractors would shrivel on the vine and our soldiers would happily come home, where they should be anyway.

        I realize there’s not any great likelihood of Paul getting the nomination, let alone winning the presidency, but the notion that military spending would go wild under a President Paul is a misreading of his many statements on the subject. He’s the one candidate who really would slash the military budget. Not that he’ll ever get that chance (despite the $25 I sent him last night in hopes he might somehow get the opportunity).

      • Citizen
        December 20, 2011, 11:03 am

        In the early 1960s a dollar was worth 4 marks. Cf exchange rate today with euro

      • Citizen
        December 16, 2011, 10:21 pm

        Yes, Phil, I was thrilled when Ron Paul spoke, and you took pretty darn good notes–I was tweeting while the candidates spoke, and using that Answer or Avoided button, plus the audio from the Fox web site was a bit behind the TV audio… I also looked in vain for even modest coverage of Ron Paul’s words in the news. BRW, you should read up on the nuance in Paul’s stance on those issues you disagree with him on.

  2. Dan Crowther
    December 16, 2011, 1:11 pm

    Despite having worked for Democrats, Matthews has said, “I’m more conservative than people think I am. … I voted for George W. in 2000.”[7] Salon.com has called him the “most conservative voice” on MSNBC’s primetime lineup.[8]
    from wiki…..

    So, there’s that.

    Fckin Ron Ron, man. I too think his economic policies are bat sht insane, but these statements are from a statesman. Nothing more needs to be said.

    “You cannot solve these problems with war… Get them over with, instead of this endless fighting and this endless attitude that we have enemies all around the world…”

    It’s amazing that this statement is as radical as it is, in the current US political discourse…..

    • Citizen
      December 16, 2011, 10:32 pm

      Yes, it is amazing, especially for anyone who lived as a young adult through the Nam Protest Era. Paul sees the pure evil behind the blind war mongers and those building our new police state. His economic policy is not “bat shit insane” in my opinion. Dan, did you ever read The Creature From Jekyll Island? Just asking.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 17, 2011, 9:56 am

        Cant say that ive read it – but that guy griffin is in the john birch society and formed a “individualist” network according to his wiki – these are problematic for me… nah citizen, i gotta admit, im RED!!! haha. my views are libertarian to be sure BUT i view owning one’s labor to be central to any meaningful idea of liberty or freedom. I’m a socialist – wow, i feel so much better now…like a weight has been lifted……haha

        Libertarian Socialism for me, please. Hello to the domestic spies now joining us…

      • Citizen
        December 17, 2011, 2:27 pm

        I don’t care if Griffith, the author of The Creature From Jekyll Island is or was in John Birth Society. The content of the book is important if you want to know how US system works. The association has 0 to do with his analysis and assessment of the birth and mechanics of the Federal Reserve System and fiat money. Dan, if you think that subject has nothing to do with owning one’s labor, you really do need to take some time to read the book. It’s a fat one, but well worth the effort.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 17, 2011, 5:38 pm

        Citizen, I think you are missing my point – of course I am anti federal reserve. It’s the alternative version of capitalism I am emphatically against.

        When Ron Paul advocates and end to wage labor and arbitrary authority of production, I’ll be right there with you. Like I said, I think that democracy and “liberty” should be extended into the work place, I don’t see him saying anything remotely like this.

      • Citizen
        December 18, 2011, 11:47 am

        Why would one want an end to wage labor? Libertarian Socialism? RED? I guess you mean as opposed to Libertarian Capitalism? The means of production have changed since Marx’s day; we are largely a service economy (not that I think that’s such a thing). Do you, in mean organizations for making things or providing services, it’s “one for all, all for one?” Do you mean, “from each according to their abilities (including spare cash or assets), and to each according to their needs (even if they mostly watch while others do the work)?

        Not sure what system you’d put in place if you could.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 18, 2011, 12:45 pm

        why would one want an end to wage labor? hahahahaaahahahaahahaha.

        For the same reasons Adam Smith, De Tocqueville, Thomas Jefferson, Ricardo and many many many others were against wage slavery. It’s a central tenet of the enlightenment…capitalism is feudalism delivered through private property by the bourgeoisie…its fundamentally autocratic control over workers and production…im dead set against this….

        libertarian capitalism is maybe the funniest thing ive ever heard of …private property only exists with a strong state and military..”anarcho capitalism” or whatever those frauds call themselves is the dumbest thing ive ever heard of….

      • Citizen
        December 18, 2011, 4:00 pm

        Dan Crowther,
        Wage labor is not the same as wage slavery; even indentured servitude is not the same as slavery. None of those people you referenced were against wage labor. Libertarian socialism is pretty funny too. You did not answer my comment and its implications at all. You could have said there such a thing as adhesion contracts, de jure or de facto, but you did not. Are you against all contracts? All personal property? How exactly would you assure in your perfect world that no body had any more power or influence than any other person? And, answer my earlier comment. Thanks.

      • MRW
        December 19, 2011, 5:41 am

        Citizen,

        “I don’t care if Griffith, the author of The Creature From Jekyll Island is or was in John Birth Society. The content of the book is important if you want to know how US system works.”

        I read that book years ago and am completely familiar with the whole 1913 thing. But it is NOT how the system works, not now. Not since 1972. We are not on the gold standard.

        Ron Paul gets all of his economic ideas from Richard Maybury, who is a deadly smart man with a vast knowledge of history. Maybury is a Hayek guy, 100% Austrian school. But what Maybury has is a moral core as well, which is what appeals to Paul.

        Nonetheless, Hayek wrote his ideas when the gold standard was king. We are not on the gold standard. We now do reserve accounting–that’s reality–and none of our politicians understand it, which is why people like Geithner and all the rogues on Wall Street can bamboozle the PTB and steal to their hearts content by getting derivatives out from under the law and deregulating the rest so they can steal with abandon with risky financial instruments and claim too-big-to-fail when they get into trouble. [Geithner should be fired along with Holder…yesterday.]

        One person who gets it is Adam Curtis. I heartily recommend this BBC video series, because I know how much you enjoy some entertainment. ;-)
        The Trap – 1 – F*k You Buddy
        link to youtube.com

        The Trap – 2 – The Lonely Robot
        link to youtube.com

        The Trap – 3 – We Will Force U 2 Be Free

      • Shingo
        December 19, 2011, 6:22 am

        I read that book years ago and am completely familiar with the whole 1913 thing. But it is NOT how the system works, not now. Not since 1972. We are not on the gold standard.

        The concept of the Fed was not based on any reliance on the gold standard.

        We now do reserve accounting–that’s reality–and none of our politicians understand it, which is why people like Geithner and all the rogues on Wall Street can bamboozle the PTB and steal to their hearts content by getting derivatives out from under the law and deregulating the rest so they can steal with abandon with risky financial instruments and claim too-big-to-fail when they get into trouble.

        So much for the claim that every dollar spent by the government being accounted for.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 19, 2011, 9:30 am

        Citizen —- ( you know you have to have a state to be a “citizen” right? ha :) )
        As for libertarian socialism in reality – I would say that there are many examples of work places that follow the model, and some whole communities are loosely based on an anarchist model – some here in massachusetts…
        Big movements, societal realities – I would say the 1936 spanish revolution is a good example, I would also say that the pre-state zionist kibbutzim was another…worker control, work sharing and worker/economic councils democratically controlling production/planning…..

        “Our federal council of economy is not a political power but an economic and administrative regulating power. It receives its orientation from below and operates in accordance with the resolutions of the regional and national assemblies. It is a liaison corps and nothing else”

        —Diego Abad de Santillan (spanish anarchist economist during on post rev)

        Of course, we know what happened to these guys. the world powers werent going to stand for something like this, so they crushed it…

        The US being a service economy presently is because of our capitalist development. I don’t see how this equates into a hinderance for socialism – in fact, if your a marxist, which i am not, you hold that capitalism must develop to this point, before the real revolution can happen…

        As for Thomas Jefferson the anti-capitalist, well, I think there is a whole lot of support for this argument…..

        “And with the laborers of England generally, does not the moral coercion of want subject their will as despotically to that of their employer, as the physical constraint does the soldier, the seaman, or the slave? ”

        That’s actually from a Ron Paul website.
        link to ronpaulforums.com
        “It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land…. By an universal law, … whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.”
        link to jstor.org

        This is almost a textbook socialist argument for how to view “possession of property.”

        And like I said, TJ’s anti-capitalist views are well known, you just have to read him for yourself.

        As for Smith — “division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be”
        –Specialization, “division of labor” is what the wage system is based on.

        link to victorianweb.org

        From the above link- “He pointed out that forcing individuals to perform mundane and repetitious tasks would lead to an ignorant, dissatisfied work force. For this reason he advanced the revolutionary belief that governments had an obligation to provide education to workers. ” ( on smith)

        Tocqueville: link to xroads.virginia.edu

        “The workman is generally dependent on the master, but not on any particular master; these two men meet in the factory, but do not know each other elsewhere; and while they come into contact on one point, they stand very far apart on all others. The manufacturer asks nothing of the workman but his labor; the workman expects nothing from him but his wages. The one contracts no obligation to protect nor the other to defend, and they are not permanently connected either by habit or by duty. The aristocracy created by business rarely settles in the midst of the manufacturing population which it directs; the object is not to govern that population, but to use it. An aristocracy thus constituted can have no great hold upon those whom it employs, and even if it succeeds in retaining them at one moment, they escape the next; it knows not how to will, and it cannot act. ”

        And of course, his most famous quote regarding the factory wage system:
        “In proportion as the principle of the division of labor is more extensively applied, the workman becomes more weak, more narrow-minded, and more dependent. The art advances, the artisan recedes.”

        The art advances, the artisan recedes. I would say this more or less constitutes the basis of my views here – I wont get into Ricardo and the leftists, but I think Kant put it well when he argued that “freedom is the pre-condition for the maturity for freedom.”

        In my view, for human history to really begin, we must do away with the government of men by men, and have government of industry (the economy) administered democratically for the benefit of the population. Im not against contract if there are freely undertaken, and even in “my system” there would be certain private property aspects ( your home for instance) – I am really just against autocratic control, in society, in the workplace and in the planning of the economy – that’s basically it. I think Paul is close in a lot of ways, but i think that if you extend Jefferson or Smith’s ideas onto modern society, you’d end up a lot closer to my POV……

        Im at work, and wrote this out sort of in haste, i hope this at least begins to explain where I am coming from…..cheers!

      • Dan Crowther
        December 19, 2011, 10:26 am

        More TJ:

        Free labor means self-employment: a comfortable independence presupposes that householders possess sufficient property to ensure that neither they nor their families are regularly forced to search abroad for work. Working for a wage is unobjectionable, but only as a stage in life or as a by-employment to agriculture. With homesteads available for anyone interested in quitting the wage-earning class, hired laborers remain as free as husbandmen (TJ to Mr. Lithson [Jan. 4, 1805] 1903, 11: 55; TJ to John Adams [Oct. 28, 1813] 1999, 190. See Macpherson 1977, 17-9).

        Here’s the full quote from Above: here he compares wage labor to slavery:
        (britain vs american south)
        And with the laborers of England generally, does not the moral coercion of want subject their will as despotically to that of their employer, as the physical constraint does the soldier, the seaman, or the slave? But do not mistake me. I am not advocating slavery…. I am at present comparing the condition and degree of suffering to which oppression has reduced the man of one color, with the condition and degree of suffering to which oppression has reduced the man of another color; equally condemning both (TJ to Dr. Thomas Cooper ([Sept. 10, 1814] 1999, 138-9).

      • Citizen
        December 20, 2011, 11:11 am

        The point is if you don’t know how the fed works, you don’t know that our reserve system is flexible, and that it has pushed inadequate reserves, lending leverage, to the limit, with no end yet in sight, and this coupled with our fiat system of purely paper money, makes this system most beneficial for bankers and inside investors, least beneficial for most folks. They just live with the results–pretty huh?

      • Dan Crowther
        December 20, 2011, 1:31 pm

        when did i ever say i didnt know how our system works? you ron paul guys are hilarious – you all have a monopoly on the knowledge of our state capitalist system. nothing to say about my last two posts……

      • Citizen
        December 20, 2011, 4:59 pm

        Dan, you said you never read The Creature From Jekyll Island. And you said, you were a RED, which you found funny for some odd reason. We did not say you said you said you did not know how the system worked, we just made that deduction from what you did say. And each comment you’ve made so far on this thread, and the responsive comments’ content you’ve ignored, are enough for all readers here to make up their own minds, and pursue it more, if they feel the need.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 20, 2011, 5:28 pm

        Yea, i never read a book about the Fed written by a Birch society member. I said I was red (jokingly) to let you know that I am not interested in reforms of the capitalist system. Fed included. So…..

        You said that Jefferson, Smith and others were not against wage labor, I cited several examples ( and its too bad that most of their works arent digitalized) opposing your view. You have neglected to mention any of them.

        I wasnt involved in the “centralized banking vs “liberatarian” capitalism discussion -because I think its a ridiculous conversation and a false choice. You made no mention of me citing the Spanish revolution etc. And again you say your views are somehow “libertarian” but your screen name is “Citizen” which infers you are A SUBJECT OF A STATE.

        Again, I dont care how bad the Fed is. I think the whole system stinks. And there is ZERO proof that pre-fed capitalism was better. So, yea, go read your racists, I’ll read the enlightenment ANTI-CAPITALISTS who i mentioned before. Real shame you had to to try and make me look like an idiot, I was civil the entire time. But let me be clear: “Libertarian Capitalists” believe in TOTAL TYRANNY….

        I’ll let Chomsky make this point even clearer….

      • Shingo
        December 20, 2011, 5:47 pm

        But let me be clear: “Libertarian Capitalists” believe in TOTAL TYRANNY….

        Apprently, you didn’t need anyone to make you look like an idiot Dan. Liberty is the opposite of tyrrany. Tyranny and fascism throughout the world is more closely aligned with socialist that libertarianism.

      • Citizen
        December 20, 2011, 5:55 pm

        Well Dan, are you interested in reforms of the Socialist System? You must know our system is not pure capitalism nor pure socialism; it’s a mix. Do you disagree?

        You are so proud about not reading that book. Because you don’t like that a Bircher member, you say, wrote it. I here will merely appeal to readers to see what they think about the contents of the book, which is not political or cultural at all; it just gives you facts re the monetary and economic theories behind the Fed Reserve System. Again, the book, The Creature From Jekyll Island.

        You readers can decide for yourself what you think about the creation of the Fed Reserve, how it was done, who did it, and what their thinking was, and was not. At least, Dan don’t you agree that our central banking system is in the hands of a private group of folks who, from 1913 to today, have never been accountable to the US public–except for fact Ron Paul led a charge to at least get a cursory audit of it for the first time ever, and this showed how much US taxpayers actually gave away recently here, to big banks, and to Europe’s big banks?

      • Dan Crowther
        December 20, 2011, 6:48 pm

        shingo-

        so anarcho capitalism which advocates private armies, private courts and nothing to regulate capitalism is freedom. OK. Cool bro…..

        i am a libertarian socialist – an anarchist. as ive said repeatedly, i think american libertarians are pretty close to what i am saying, but if you think through the capitalist mode of production in its simplest form (capitalist lording over workers) it does not describe “freedom”

        once again, really nice that alot of folks who views i respect normally here become jackals once Lord Paul gets criticized. you guys would make good zionists.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 20, 2011, 6:59 pm

        Of course I dont disagree that we have a mixed system.

        I havent said anything about the Fed other than ” I am anti Fed”
        i am writing this in english, right?

        OF COURSE I THINK THE FED IS A TYRANNY!!! :) Geez, I cant be any more against the Fed.

        The dialogue between the two of us, Citizen, was not about the Fed system. It was a question of whether I had read a book ( and ur right, sometimes racists are right, i shouldnt have been so dismissive) – I hadnt read the book.

        Then it was a question of me trying to state that (1) I am anti-Fed, (2) I am anti-capitalist –with wage labor being mentioned. You said that the people I cited were not against wage labor, I cited examples of them being just the opposite. That was the extent of the dialogue – you guys were talking Fed stuff with the others on the thread not me.

        Geez Louise. And yes, I am for constant improvement, reforms of systems that I believe are democratic in nature. Certain institutions, like the Fed need to go, but I extend that to many other institutions including the general state capitalist system.

        I am for: free association, worker control over production and as I said earlier – democratic control over social and economic institutions. I just don’t see how unregulated, unfettered capitalism ( of the anarcho-capitalist model) fits into this view….

      • Dan Crowther
        December 20, 2011, 8:13 pm

        Ahh shit – I meant to say “somtimes racists can be right ABOUT OTHER TOPICS

        I really didnt mean for that to come out that way. Is it too late to edit? Sorry for this, I really F’d that up…

      • Shingo
        December 20, 2011, 10:25 pm

        so anarcho capitalism which advocates private armies, private courts and nothing to regulate capitalism is freedom. OK. Cool bro…..

        Libertarian capilaism does not support anarcho capitalism or advocates private armies – that is what we effectively have today, which has nothig to do with
        libertarian capilaism.

        but if you think through the capitalist mode of production in its simplest form (capitalist lording over workers) it does not describe “freedom”

        That’s effectively what we have today, because in the current climate labor is regarded as something that can be exploited and should be. In a libertarian model, the employee gets to decide what terms of employment they are willing to accept.

        once again, really nice that alot of folks who views i respect normally here become jackals once Lord Paul gets criticized. you guys would make good zionists.

        I was thinking the same thing about opponents of Paul. You’re seem perfectly happy to tolerate candicates who are weak/wrong/liars on everything, but when it comes to Paul (who everyone here accepts is righ about foreign policy), it seems that his domestic policies are a deal breaker. What is truly remarklable about this is that you maintain this stance in spite of the fact that the guys running the show have:

        1. stolen from the public to give to the rich
        2. bankrupted the country
        3. imposed martial law
        4. are turning the state into a tyrrany of their own

        But so long as they make the righ platitudes in public speeched and debates, you’re perfectly happy to have them lie to you.

        And before you chime in by saying you would support Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich (both who’m I respect BTW), let’s be frank about whether they are even in the running.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 21, 2011, 8:48 am

        Ive NEVER ONCE said I support ANY other candidate….I do NOT accept the current tyranny – AT ALL.

        You can go through my archive, Ive said REPEATEDLY that if I were to vote, I would cast my vote for Paul, if given the opportunity. AND, if it were a choice between Paul and a Democrat – Id take Paul all day and twice on sunday.

        We can discuss the ramifications of electing someone else, and I definitely agree with you, that in all the other cases, massive state tyranny is assured – but we were discussing Paul, who in my view, could lead the country into a private, unaccountable tyranny, delivered at the hands of big business. That’s all. If you tell me that Paul is for labor organizing and mass collective bargaining AND will be willing to enforce current labor laws, and allow for workers and their communities to take control over their economic lives, im listening….. your description of what the work place would be under a “libertarian” model, sounds like traidtional anarchism. and thats what i mean about some you paul guys – your frigging libertarian socialists just like me! haha. You might not know it now, but I won’t give up on you!

        I never once impugned the man’s integrity – i think he is an honorable man, who means well. But whats the hayek line “the road to hell is paved with good intentions..”?

      • Citizen
        December 21, 2011, 10:35 am

        Hi Dan,
        Or you may be a “friggin libertarian capitalist” without knowing it?
        Q: Are unions good for America?
        RP: The right to unionize should be a basic right of any group. You should be able to organize. You should have no privileges, no special benefits legislated to benefit the unions, but you should never deny any working group to organize and negotiate for the best set of standards of working conditions.

        Believe it or not, I think your implied concerns about disproportionate corporate power are realistic. When one throws in the Nanny state, sometimes this disproportionate power is reversed, at least for the average American.

        Corporations have the power of $ against their relatively poor adversaries. But a true objective view of USA situation is that sometimes, the government has equal or more effective power against the average working stiff. After all, any government, no matter the type, has a monopoly on legal force.

        On the instant issue, where someone cannot get a job unless they join a union, is that what you want? And, what if that person has to then pay dues?
        And what if the dues goes to the coffers of the Union elite management, who use the dues to empower themselves, and push the corporation to grant concessions that actually harm the corporation to be competitive? My Dad faced all of this when the NYC RR was operating; he was caught between the union feather bedding, etc and the managements greed, and eventually, the federal government came into play with Amtrak. Pearlman ruined a lot of good things, and we all know how the passenger RR is now nothing, and there’s a move to re-privatize it. And so on. I myself worked for a RR; the union called a strike and never even told me about it. I traveled 2 hours to get to work only 2 find a strike barring my entrance. I decided to run the strike line. Point is, big labor has been a problem, same as corporations. To ignore this is, well, infantile. I also worked for minimum wage, and I was glad to get it, but it’s not simply a theory that there is a point where it’s simply not profitable to hire at minimum wage if it gets too high, & this hurts job availability.

        I don’t know about you, but I worked my way through college, and then law school (the latter, with some help from a merit scholarship & GI bill), and I’ve worked for Manpower, Inc & a bunch of solo businesses with no benefits & they were dangerous, e.g., cleaning the outside of buildings.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 21, 2011, 11:22 am

        ” You should have no privileges, no special benefits legislated to benefit the unions, but you should never deny any working group to organize and negotiate for the best set of standards of working conditions.”

        Anytime I hear language (“privileges” “special benefits”) like this, it makes me think the person is a bad liar or thinks I’m stupid.

        What would this person think of privileges and special benefits of corporations, starting with limitied liability? I’m guessing he’s all for it.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 21, 2011, 1:11 pm

        (dan nodding his head in agreement)

    • seafoid
      December 17, 2011, 7:52 am

      The rest of the nominees are like golf club members who don’t know anything but because they are in the golf club have credibility. Romney is possibly the best of a particularly bad lot but he’ll say anything to be elected. I think Paul’s economic and health insurance policies are insane. The Republican Party is in big trouble.

      • Citizen
        December 17, 2011, 8:57 am

        What is insane is our bipartisan-backed Fed Reserve, fiat money system & IRS Code welfare for the wealthy via ways to reduce taxable income, and our endless war “on terror,” and rubber-stamping of Likud Israel. No matter what party you may belong to, if you don’t vote for Ron Paul you are part of our biggest problems.

      • CloakAndDagger
        December 17, 2011, 10:41 am

        if you don’t vote for Ron Paul you are part of our biggest problems

        Hear, hear!

      • seafoid
        December 17, 2011, 6:19 pm

        I wouldn’t vote for any of the Republicans or Obama. They are all Corporate Wh%res and Shills. None of them stands up for values like sustainability, decency or reason.
        Nader has always been right.
        Anyway I don’t have a vote. I, like the rest of the world, have to take the consequences of the decisions made in the US.

      • Citizen
        December 18, 2011, 4:01 pm

        I agree Nader would make a good POTUS.

      • MRW
        December 19, 2011, 5:49 am

        Citize,

        Gold is fiat money too. It is fiat for a cow. This is the truth. Real history of money. The genesis of it was this: a cow was the value. It gave you food, transportation, plowed the fields, and when it died, you could eat it, and use the hide for clothing. (To this day, there are place in India and Africa where your wealth is measured in cows.)

        When trading started, and extremely wealthy men (lots of cows) wanted to trade over long distances, it made no sense to lug your cows over hill and dale and mountain, diminishing their value. So gold coins were produced at 350 grains of gold each to represent one cow. Gold was chosen because it was durable and plentiful and easily stamped.

        Fiat money.

      • Shingo
        December 19, 2011, 6:15 am

        Gold was chosen because it was durable and plentiful and easily stamped.

        Fiat money does not hold it’s value for thousands of years MRW and it was chosen precisely because it was NOT plentiful, therefore having instrinsic value.

      • Citizen
        December 20, 2011, 11:26 am

        MRW, the gold represented real cows, right? Or power to raise and support an army?
        And how long was gold used so, as the standard?
        What real does paper fiat money represent? An IOU? If so, based on what that is real, tangible, can be traded or used?
        Did you ever hear of anyone needing wheel barrels of gold to buy a single loaf of bread? How about paper money with nothing solid backing it?

        How long will China, for example, keep honoring our fiat money?
        And when will we have to start paying higher interest rates to borrow from China? When will we step down from AAA to AA? We did. Next is A.
        How many future generations of Americans will be paying back our debt?
        Our fiat money debt.

      • dahoit
        December 19, 2011, 11:01 am

        And what about Obombas,and the other Republicans economic ideas;Bat sh*t crazy?The Democratic party is on its own path to destruction because they aren’t democrats for the people but corporate whores who together with their wacko Rep.friends (Levin McCain jumps to mind)have turned US into a service industry of slaves at low wages and nonunionized jobs while destroying the greatest economic powerhouse in world history.
        Obombas reinforcing the for profit healthcare and insurance scheme has only filled the coffers of predators with more of our dough and the costs keep rising,while food costs increase and they make the packages smaller.I’ll go for crazy over batsh*t insane anyday.

  3. lysias
    December 16, 2011, 1:11 pm

    Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal doesn’t like Ron Paul’s foreign policy views” Why Ron Paul Can’t Win : The candidate’s problem isn’t better-funded opponent or media bias—it’s his own views on foreign policy.:

    Except on foreign policy, where Mr. Paul does himself in. In discrete areas, Mr. Paul’s “noninterventionist” approach resonates with those weary of war, or with the populist sentiment that we spend too much on foreign aid. And note that Mr. Paul has made small stabs at reassuring voters of his patriotism, as with a big national TV ad that highlighted his own military service and commitment to veterans.

    But none of this has addressed voters’ big concern over a Paul philosophy that fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland. Perhaps nothing hurt the candidate more in 2008 than his declaration that one reason terrorists attacked us on 9/11 is because “we’ve been in the Middle East.”

    Far from toning down such views, Mr. Paul has amped up the wattage, claiming this year that 9/11 prompted “glee” in a Bush administration looking for a pretext to “invade Iraq.” He’s condemned the Obama administration’s killings of terrorists Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, and he insists the U.S. is “provoking” Iran.

    For foreign-policy hawks, this is a disqualifier. It explains why a Washington Post-ABC poll in late September showed that Mr. Paul drew some of his weakest numbers from his own base. Of the 25% of voters who viewed him favorably, nearly two-thirds did not identify themselves as Republicans. Among self-identified “conservative Republicans,” only 8% gave him a “strongly favorable” rating. You don’t win a GOP nomination with figures like this. Even mainstream Democrats and independents have no time for Mr. Paul’s brand of isolationism, which is why his national numbers remain stuck around 10%.

    • CloakAndDagger
      December 16, 2011, 1:55 pm

      It would be a watershed in America the day we could prove all these naysayers wrong.

      • Citizen
        December 16, 2011, 10:40 pm

        The irony is that because so many disregard what Paul says, the very things the naysayers say will happen if we don’t maintain the status quo, and even push the war pedal to the floor, will happen–because of that pedal pressure, not Ron Paul’s view we should use a few of our 12,000 diplomats and quit jumping the gun. They will then tell Paul, “I told you so,” oblivious their own foot did it. And one hundred years from now a few curious people will read the details that survive on records.

    • mhuizenga
      December 16, 2011, 2:55 pm

      “But none of this has addressed voters’ big concern over a Paul philosophy that fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland.”

      Funny, Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate, Democratic or Republican, (Look at the recent “indefinite detention act” that President Obama is getting ready to sign off on) that actually recognizes that the real source of “American exceptionalism” is our constitution and bill of rights, not “decisive action to protect the homeland.”

    • Shingo
      December 16, 2011, 3:34 pm

      What a pathetic and disingenuous article by Strassle.

      So according to her, bringing the troops home would prevent them from defending the homeland huh?

      • Citizen
        December 16, 2011, 10:41 pm

        I’ve noticed more and more lady war hawks–what’s that all about?

    • Mooser
      December 16, 2011, 3:35 pm

      “Mr. Paul’s “noninterventionist” approach resonates with those weary of war, or with the populist sentiment that we spend too much on foreign aid.”

      The money we spend on interventions is “foreign aid”?

    • stevieb
      December 16, 2011, 5:32 pm

      I think she’s as wrong as hell – but she probably knows it, and probably knows that they would never let him be the Republican candidate, too…

    • homingpigeon
      December 16, 2011, 5:33 pm

      I can’t help wondering if when journalists write this stuff to diss Ron Paul they are actually attracting favorable attention to his views.

    • ritzl
      December 16, 2011, 8:16 pm

      Great catch lysias.

      In discrete areas, Mr. Paul’s “noninterventionist” approach resonates with those weary of war, or with the populist sentiment that we spend too much on foreign aid.

      She describes the voter mood perfectly and why most people would find his FP views viscerally appealing, then proceeds to discount them to zero.

      What a classic illustration of why this country is in such a mess. Yet, hopefully, what a brilliant accounting of the dynamics of change.

    • Hostage
      December 17, 2011, 5:09 am

      Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal doesn’t like Ron Paul’s foreign policy

      I’m pretty certain that Rupert Murdoch pays the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal to dislike Ron Paul’s foreign policy;-) See for example the Pew Research Center commentary on The Wall Street Journal under Rupert Murdoch link to journalism.org

      It seemed like the time spent living through the Cold War under the threat of 30,000 nuclear missiles pointed at our country actually went by quicker than listening to Brett Baier repeating that trumped-up question about what Ron Paul would do if he knew Iran had only one nuclear weapon. Murdoch outlets praise Reagan for winning the Cold War, but he obviously thinks we would have been better off if we had preemptively attacked and started WWIII when Nikita Khrushchev said “We will bury you!”

    • dahoit
      December 17, 2011, 1:06 pm

      Looking for any truth other than stock prices at the WSJ,is an exercise in futility,about as useless as asking Netanyahu about the good qualities of Yassir Arafat.

    • Duscany
      December 19, 2011, 4:24 am

      It’s amazing that Kimberly Strassel thinks the American public might think Paul unpatriotic because he doesn’t want to start a war with Iran (unlike her presumably). I wonder where Strassel thinks we’re going to get the money to fight another war or why the public would support a new war now after 10 years in Afghanistan (9 1/2 of which were totally wasted).

      I also don’t know why Strassel thinks it’s so ludicrous that the terrorists attacked us on 9-11 because “we’re in the Middle Eeast.” As Paul has observed in previous debates, the 9-11 Commission came to the same conclusion, as have American generals.

    • dahoit
      December 19, 2011, 11:08 am

      Switch the channel,its a rerun.Straight from Tel Aviv.Israelis don’t like Ron Paul;surprise! The fools don’t realize he will rescue them from their insanity of overwhelming pride and power.And US!
      Wapo and ABC,among the most trusted names in hell.

  4. pabelmont
    December 16, 2011, 1:20 pm

    Yes, Annie and Phil, fantastic. For me, recalls Jesse Jackson’s campaigns (1984, 1988) doomed of course, but he managed occasionally to be allowed to speak on TV. Ron Paul, too, is often silenced, and is said to be “outbursting” when he has a very, very carefully prepared position and EXPLANATION (thanks Phil). On foreign policy, stellar.

    The MIC (BIG-ARMS) must hate him! BIG-ZION, ditto. I hope he gets at least a few Republicans and others thinking. Now, about those 1130 military bases * * *

  5. dumvitaestspesest
    December 16, 2011, 1:27 pm

    The way MSM treats Ron Paul shows clearly how corrupted, manipulated, sold-out they are.
    They can not stand the truth that Ron Paul is trying to convey. The language of Truth is simple and straightforward. They are not used to it.
    They are trying to discredit him seeing how more and more popular he gets.
    Is the public going to buy lies or truth?? I dunno.
    Public, in general ,likes comfort, easy, mind-numbing entertainment and cheap food.

  6. CloakAndDagger
    December 16, 2011, 1:47 pm

    The big money bomb fro Ron Paul is on right now. Please remember to donate what you can.

  7. stopaipac
    December 16, 2011, 2:02 pm

    One reason he can’t be elected is that many of us that do oppose US imperialism and funding Israel’s apartheid regime would never in a million years vote for the likes of Ron Paul. His views on most domestic matters are way to the right of Perry and Bachman… his economic policy reminds me of Pinochet. He has proven himself to be a racist (e.g. “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” ). So while it is fine that at least someone is bringing up the idea of closing military bases and ending aid to Israel, we have to look at the big picture.

    We talk about hypocrisy of those self-described progressives who embrace the likes of Grayson or Weiner or Pelosi while they support Israeli militarism. WE should call them out for it. But then we can’t turn around and embrace a man who is a REP.. Reactionary Except for Palestine.

    • Shingo
      December 16, 2011, 2:45 pm

      Thanks for that completely ludicrous summation of Paul StopAipac.

      It goes to show that those who think Paul is extreme are those who have no understanding about his policies.

      • G. Seauton
        December 16, 2011, 7:50 pm

        “Thanks for that completely ludicrous summation of Paul StopAipac.”

        All the Paulist priests on this site should read this column by a Paulist of a different persuasion–Paul Krugman:

        link to nytimes.com

      • G. Seauton
        December 16, 2011, 8:03 pm

        That said, I agree with Phil that Ron Paul’s comments on Iran, Iraq, and U.S. war policy in general are excellent and need to be said. No one else is saying what Paul has been saying for years now. These positions explain why so many progressives flocked to Paul several years ago. Most of them hadn’t examined his other positions.

      • Shingo
        December 16, 2011, 8:43 pm

        These positions explain why so many progressives flocked to Paul several years ago.

        That and his opposition to the bank bailout, his opposition to crony capitlism, the fact that he doesn’t take money from lobby groups, the fact he does not even accept the government pension and health cover (to which he is otherwise entitled), his opposition to the secrecy and lack of transparency of the Fed, the fact that he predicted the financial crisis and credit bubble.

        Most of them hadn’t examined his other positions.

        Such as you.

      • Shingo
        December 16, 2011, 8:44 pm

        All the Paulist priests on this site should read this column by a Paulist of a different persuasion–Paul Krugman:

        And here is the man who predicted the housing bubble 8 years ago explainign why Krugman is wrong.

        link to finance.yahoo.com

      • G. Seauton
        December 16, 2011, 11:36 pm

        Oh, I had. I looked into Ron Paul fairly seriously when he first became big news. I don’t share your libertarian capitalist politics, so his opposition to crony capitalism hardly overcomes my other objections to him. Consider, for example, his opposition to FEMA and his comments about the hurricane in Galveston, Texas, in 1900:

        link to salon.com

        The reality of that disaster, which Paul breezily ignores, is that bodies were piled so high that the government paid volunteers in whiskey to get the corpses buried. It was a horrendously dangerous situation — but to hear Ron Paul tell it, hurricanes were never any real problem. No FEMA help was needed at all.

        I guess under a Ron Paul administration the government would keep a large stock of whiskey on hand to deal with any natural disasters that FEMA would otherwise have had the responsibility to handle.

        Oh, and you’re putting Peter Schiff, the CEO of a brokerage, up against Paul Krugman? It’s not as if the link you gave provided any substantive refutation. By the way, Euro Pacific Capital, his firm, is betting heavily on a crash of the dollar. That seems to reflect what passes for clever insight these days. However, it’s the euro that appears to be on thin ice these days. And note that Schiff says that we need to fix the deficit now because it will only be more difficult later — although interest rates are at historic lows (negative real rates) and trending lower.

        OK, I don’t want to hijack the thread with a discussion of economics, but seriously, the CEO of a brokerage? To rebut Paul Krugman?

      • G. Seauton
        December 16, 2011, 11:59 pm

        Also, you say,

        “here is the man who predicted the housing bubble 8 years ago …”

        You can’t predict something that has already occurred. The housing bubble was well underway 8 years ago.

        Maybe you mean he predicted that the bubble would burst? Many economists worried about that, including Krugman. The person most openly pessimistic about a housing crash and resulting crisis was Nouriel Roubini. The debate, in the years before the crisis, was whether there would be a “hard landing” or a “soft landing.” Obviously, we got the hard landing — but the whole question was openly debated well before the bubble burst.

        If Schiff was predicting a crash 8 years ago, I’d be curious to see a link.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2011, 6:43 am

        Many economists worried about that, including Krugman.

        Schiff wasn’t just worried about it, he was explaining why it would happen and why, and he predicted the hard landing.

        link to youtube.com

        The person most openly pessimistic about a housing crash and resulting crisis was Nouriel Roubini. The debate, in the years before the crisis, was whether there would be a “hard landing” or a “soft landing.”

        More pessimistic than Schiff? Not even close.

        Schiff was already predicting a hard landing and he’s been predicting all along that all government measures were going to fail.

        If Schiff was predicting a crash 8 years ago, I’d be curious to see a link.

        Actually, he was predicting it right after the tech bubble burst and the Fed lowered interest rates to soften the blow.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2011, 6:54 am

        I don’t share your libertarian capitalist politics, so his opposition to crony capitalism hardly overcomes my other objections to him

        I take it therefore that you suport the Patriot Act, TSA, murdering of US citizens locally and abroad without trial, torture, wiretapping, support for dictators.

        Consider, for example, his opposition to FEMA and his comments about the hurricane in Galveston, Texas, in 1900:

        I hope this was an attempt at commedy on your part, becasue given the disaterous role FEMA played during Hurricame Katrina, you’re either to stupid or to ignorant to remember. Had FEMA been involved in Galveston in 1900, the bodies would have contionued to pile up.

        Have you forgotten how Brownie, the man appointed to the head of FEMA (even though his only prior qualification was as Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association) was too busy having a meal when Katrina hit to be disturbed by phone calls from New Orleans?

        link to time.com

        Ron Paul had it exactly right about FEMA.

        Oh, and you’re putting Peter Schiff, the CEO of a brokerage, up against Paul Krugman?

        Yes, the CEO of a brokerage firm that is making money up against an academic who’s completely lost his marbles.

        link to youtube.com

        By the way, Euro Pacific Capital, his firm, is betting heavily on a crash of the dollar.

        And you think the dollar isn’t going to crash?

        However, it’s the euro that appears to be on thin ice these days.

        Yes, an d that’s becasue unlike the US, the EURO isn’t being printed recklessly. The Euro is imposing the harsh austerity measures that the Washington knows would lead to civli war in the US.

        And note that Schiff says that we need to fix the deficit now because it will only be more difficult later — although interest rates are at historic lows (negative real rates) and trending lower.

        They will have to be raised, but the FED and Washington don’t have the guts to do it.

      • quercus
        December 17, 2011, 7:41 am

        I’ve just read the article at salon and it said NOTHING. It took a remark Paul made and condemned him for it. There was nothing else written about why Mr. Paul would have the view of FEMA he does. It is precisely the same as was done with his remark about the DC criminal justice system and black folk and labeling him as racist for it. You want to know about the man, listen to all the debates. I couldn’t give a damn what some fool at salon wrote.

      • Citizen
        December 17, 2011, 9:04 am

        Shingo is right; ultimately, only the US gets to print money out of thin air–causing the continued problem eventually China will be forced to deal with, for example–then the US will be forced to pay more for any credit extended to it.

      • dahoit
        December 19, 2011, 11:16 am

        Priests?Nah,divinity school expelled me for questioning Gods choice of his chosen.
        And his opposition to the FED and neolibcon capitalist scheming with their bought criminals in Congress will be liberating and will revive our nation into a nation for its people not some foreign provocateur racist wacko entity that eschews civilization while claiming pride of place and nobility.

      • jewishgoyim
        December 17, 2011, 1:30 am

        Now Shingo, where should I start?
        Perhaps the fact that you probably believe everything you hear on MSNBC?
        Perhaps the fact that you’re impressed by someone flaunting a Nobel prize in economics?
        Perhaps the fact that you have very little understanding of what happened to your country in the last ten years on the economic front?
        Perhaps the fact that you tend to believe what you read in the New York Times “as a rule”?
        Perhaps the fact that you tend to trust bearded men? (How about Bernanke?).

        Well, it is true that the very low level of inflation has been staggering in the last few years. What Krugman does not say is that the measures taken have been unprecedented and that it’s much too early to decide whether they have been efficient and avoided an economic calamity or merely postponed an even worse catastrophe.

        I’ll tell you about unprecedented measures taken in the recent history. One was putting the interest rates to 1% in 2002 and pushing for a real estate bubble (Krugman advocated for a real estate bubble in 2002, you can google it). We know what ensued. Now the rates have been at zero for 3 years. Krugman claiming victory is similar to Bernanke claiming there was no housing bubble in 2005. This is “FED talk” and the FED is ruling this planet (give or take). Krugman is one of these unelected Princeton economists (Bernanke is also from Princeton as a lot of the US economy apparatchik) who are ruling our world and guess what, they are NEVER wrong! Come what may!

        Housing bubble to finance a war? No problem!!

        Zero interest rate policy to finance the fallout of the housing bubble? No Problem!!

        Unprecedented (and awfully unjust) measures to keep afloat the international power structure (aka international financial system)? Bring it on!!!!! As long as bankers are in the driving seat, tools such as Krugman are delighted!

        Krugman is a tool of the oligarchy. He’s up there with the Summers and Paulsons of the world. Just maybe a little too pompous to have gotten as rich. But hey, he probably impresses his friends with his rubbish Nobel prize!

        If you wonder how to corner Krugman, it’s not difficult: just ask him what “too big a deficit” would be. He would just look at you with a stupid blank stare. He just does not think there is a limit.

        And I’m not kidding. One of his op-ed lately said that this deficit scare is stupid because interest rates for the US Gov is so low. Well that’s true. You know what other interest rates were low? Fucking interest rates on mortgage backed securities in 2006!!! That’s how deep Krugman’s economic thinking is. If it’s low now, it’s gonna be low forever. His BS is too obvious. I would bet he does not believe in it.

      • jewishgoyim
        December 17, 2011, 1:50 am

        Previous post was to Seauton, not Shinto with whom I think I agree! ;-)

      • Citizen
        December 17, 2011, 9:08 am

        Yes, your post was to Seauton (who apparently has not been noticing the price hikes so regular at his local chain grocery store, for example), not Shingo, whom you do agree with, and so do I.

      • dahoit
        December 19, 2011, 11:36 am

        Even I,a non economic interested observer,knew that borrowing and borrowing and borrowing leads one into debt,and voila,our house prices that have fallen+ 25%in the last few years have been the minus that gave the banksters back their stolen loot.We’ve been the fall guys!
        There used to be at least ten construction guys in each neighborhood ten years ago,and look now,a ghost town.
        Small business is extinct or going the way of the dodo.(And who killed small business-Home Depot,Lowes,Walmart,Target and every other big store with Chinese goods that closed main street and opened corporate owned malls where if you voice your rights they arrest you.
        And big business is a death machine of weapons,cigarettes ,alcohol and prescription drugs that make one catatonic and hooked with bad side effects,and to call this progress is insane.
        C’mon Dr.Paul!Save US!

    • dumvitaestspesest
      December 16, 2011, 2:59 pm

      You a terrible and ignorant propagandist ,stopaipac.
      Start thinking.

    • W.Jones
      December 16, 2011, 3:25 pm

      On the general contours of policy analysis, I may sympathize with you, except that he also seems more dedicated to political liberties than other candidates. Granted, his answer to Black Crime is to make the criminal “justice” system more “efficient”, and this could mean instead of getting to the societal and economic causes of Crime, like poverty and unemployment, that he could unintentionally end up reducing Blacks’ civil liberties- using watchtowers and barbed wire instead of job creation and work/housing projects. But this is the downside.

      I think it is very important to have Ron Paul being a dissident, outside the establishment and its funding, talking about our political rights and having a good, positive foreign policy, rather than a foreign policy based on invading and making deadly occupations.

      Ron Paul is not R.E.P. because Palestine is not the only thing he is progressive on- I would say on foreign policy and political rights he is largely a progressive dissident, and this is half of what matters, the other half being economic policies and economic rights.

      I mean, if a candidate- and I really doubt Ron Paul’s thinking is this extreme, because reagan wasn’t- is going to get rid of taxes for rich people and welfare- not saying he will- then this would make some really big problems for the country. Bands of unemployed broken trailer people roaming the country looking for food, just to start with. Perhaps with the slow slide of the US economy, our country can aspire to the likes of 3rd world poverty situations as well.

      • Citizen
        December 16, 2011, 10:55 pm

        Ron Paul is the only one talking in any depth about the fact that our banking, monetary system and tax code are a core part of the system that has brought us to where we are now.

      • gazacalling
        December 17, 2011, 9:43 am

        Yeah, this is the way I feel too. He’s the only one who treats us like adults and engages the complicated issues. The other candidates boil them down to such simplistic soundbites (“I’m a businessman, so I know how to get America working again” — Mitt Romneybot) Everyone has to have a soundbite. But ultimately working exclusively in soundbites means you will govern for the interests of the Establishment. The Establishment has failed in so many ways, from Iraq to big banking, while enriching themselves in the process (military contractors, obscene Wall Street remuneration). Really talking about our problems means, in the end, being a threat to the Establishment. So the other candidates stick to simple soundbites for a reason.

        Liberals shouldn’t get so spooked about the label “libertarian.” The more I listen to Paul, the more I feel like true liberals — not Establishment “liberals” — would like how he would govern. Namely, taking on the vested interests. Exactly what Obama has so utterly failed to do.

    • homingpigeon
      December 16, 2011, 5:39 pm

      Stopaipac, please consider that the Roman Legions are wiping out entire villages in France, capturing slaves, nailing dissidents on crosses. We have someone trying to put an end to this. Should our first concern be bread and circuses for the mobs of Rome? And maybe fixing the cracks in the Coliseum?

    • Citizen
      December 16, 2011, 10:52 pm

      stopaipac, you are outright lying about Ron Paul’s public views. In the Iowa debate he actually said way too many blacks are in our prisons, etc. His views are NOT to the right of Perry or Bachmann on domestic matters, and he’s the only one screaming about how the Patriot Act is turning this country into a police state, depriving us of due process, etc.

    • dahoit
      December 17, 2011, 1:17 pm

      Yeah,like all your democrat heroes have ever done for blacks in America except relegate them to ghettos,make them jail birds,give them Kabuki theater civil rights acts that have done nothing but send them more destruction,and sent all the jobs overseas that would employ them,and leave them in continual poverty.
      Just like the overwhelming majority of Republicans.
      Our economy is on the rocks exactly because of our current and former crop of Congress critters are neolibcon criminals whose worship of Mammon and their disregard for the American people have left US teetering on a cliff and the one guy with a different economic message is wacky?Sheesh,it’s getting ludicrous.

    • anonymouscomments
      December 17, 2011, 4:02 pm

      Paul is “unelectable”, not only due to the media, but the fact that if he was the nominee, and miraculously was positioned to beat Obama, he’d be DEAD. You cannot advocate rolling back a multi-trillion dollar MIC, assumedly expect to slash the CIA, and live. Sounds conspiratorial, but if he were in such a position (and he would not get that far), he’d be dead.

      But if we forget the media and the fact that he would not be *allowed* to get the high office, we have to be honest about his views, and what his presidency would actually mean, “on the ground”.

      His foreign policy views are a breath of fresh air and sanity. Just getting them out there is a benefit to us all. If he were president, his foreign policy would save the US from bursting its empire bubble.

      Domestically, I disagree with his form of libertarianism, but then again, how much control would he *have* on domestic issues? CONGRESS would have most of the power, and he would be hostage to American and Congressional views on major domestic issues. His place of control would be largely in the foreign policy realm.

      Further, in reality, he is for drastically reducing the federal government, and supports state’s rights. With our current system, it is hard for states to fully implement progressive policies given the free flow of people across state lines. However, perhaps it is better that politics get more local, and states can implement their own policies based on their own electorate?

      I do not care sooo much if the majority in some states want to teach creationism, and try to bar abortion, as that is their democratic right. They will live with the consequences, and emulate other states when/if they see their error.

      So although Paul would (attempt to) gut programs I consider proper for government to administer, the states can fill the void, should they want to. If we return to a union, rather than a right wing empire attempting to control and dominate the world, we all may fare much better.

      In the end, you can disagree with his ideas on the role of gov (and i do), but that does not mean states cannot fill the void. That does not mean he will be able to implement his domestic policies anyways. And his foreign policy views? Well, he is not perfect, but he is the BEST out there. Nobody comes close, and nobody has for a long time. If it means avoiding some manufactured “clash of civilizations”, I’ll swallow the domestic policy I disagree with….

  8. PeaceThroughJustice
    December 16, 2011, 2:26 pm

    How about this for a truly subversive message–

    “I would be a different kind of president. I wouldn’t be looking for more power. Everybody wants to be a powerful executive and run things. I as a president wouldn’t want to run the world. I don’t want to police individual’s activities and their life style, and I don’t want to run the economy. So that’s an entirely different philosophy. But it’s very very much in our tradition and in the tradition of our constitution.” [6:20]

    • stopaipac
      December 16, 2011, 2:47 pm

      He’d also make sure government does not interfere with corporate policy. Want to pollute a river? He certainly does not think it is government role to interfere, leave it to the “invisible hand of free enterprise”, so let the toxins run. Like Newt, he’d favor doing away with “stupid” child labor laws. Your employer doesn’t cover health care and you are sick? He certainly would not let government “interfere” in your health care.

      on the other hand… he does support laws like the infamous one in Arizona where the government runs checks on those it merely suspects might be undocumented immigrants.

      This is not freedom he is promoting.

      • lysias
        December 16, 2011, 3:04 pm

        For most of his domestic program, Paul would need congressional approval, which I doubt if he would get in many cases.

        But as President he would have the power to end the wars all by himself. Something that would outweigh any harm that he might do in other areas.

        And, if he turned out to be such a bad president, he could always be denied re-election.

        In the meantime, he would have ended all our wars.

        Which would make it all worthwhile.

      • anonymouscomments
        December 18, 2011, 12:40 pm

        You put it perfectly. This is why I dream of a Paul presidency. No more blood on our hands, and billions saved (or trillions).

      • Shingo
        December 16, 2011, 3:08 pm

        Want to pollute a river? He certainly does not think it is government role to interfere, leave it to the “invisible hand of free enterprise”, so let the toxins run.

        Because we all know what an impeccable job the Federal government is doing keeping rivers clean. Of course, if you’d bothered to listen to what he says, he advocates such areas being the responsibility of state governments.

        Same with child labor laws.

        Re health care, as he states, he often treated patients for free and believes communities should organize to care for those who cannot afford health insurance.

        Regarding immigration laws, that too would not be implemented at a federal level either.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 16, 2011, 3:29 pm

        Shingo,

        Have you actually seen how state and local level government function? They can’t even keep themselves from letting teachers preach in public schools without constant supervision.

        I wouldn’t trust local government not to poke themselves in the eye with a sharp pencil and Paul want to entrust them with environmental regulation, child labor laws, immigration and health care??

      • W.Jones
        December 16, 2011, 3:34 pm

        Since Ron Paul is a dissident and not as connected to the establishment, I think he would be less corrupt. I like him more than the other Republican candidates.

        And I think Obama means well, but being president seems more important to him that fighting for things he thinks are right. Oh well, that probably applies to a ton of people for whom keeping their job is more important than doing the right thing.

        So Green Party would be best, but there is a big herd mentality and there are alot of rules that indirectly favor a “two party” system. I might vote Green, but not sure.

      • Shingo
        December 16, 2011, 3:38 pm

        Sorry Woody,

        But the US does stand for “The United States”. If you want to abolish the states, start a campaign and see how far that gets you. The Constitution was never intended to centralize health care and education.

        If teachers want to start preaching in public schools, let the parents decide if they want that for their children or not.

      • stopaipac
        December 16, 2011, 3:50 pm

        In fact Shingo, Immigration law is implemented at the federal level. That is the reason the draconian anti-immigrant laws in Arizona and before that California (Prop 187) were not implemented, on the basis that only the federal government has jurisdiction in making immigration law.

        Regarding Paul’s treating people for free, that’s nice, but he may decide to putting down riots across the country as he takes away most labor rights (see what happen when his buddy Gov Walker went to work in Wisconsin) takes too much of his time to treat people who might line up at the White House.

        Do you really believe states have the right to make laws that bring back child labor abuse? Do you also believe, like Ron Paul, that states have the right to make laws regarding elections and put in place more restrictions to disenfranchise people of color and working people? This freakin’ racist was even opposed to the Civil Rights Act.

      • dumvitaestspesest
        December 16, 2011, 3:59 pm

        so what do you want??
        Guards to monitor guards??
        The govenrment in this country grew to epidemic proportions, and as it is always the case, it will start soon to devour its own children.
        The main idea is to decrease the influence of this parasatic Monster ,who butts in in every aspect of life of its citizenes.
        Do you want to make the Monster bigger??

      • Shingo
        December 16, 2011, 4:55 pm

        In fact Shingo, Immigration law is implemented at the federal level. That is the reason the draconian anti-immigrant laws in Arizona and before that California (Prop 187) were not implemented, on the basis that only the federal government has jurisdiction in making immigration law.

        I don’t recall Paul proposing any laws that vilate federal immigration laws or in violation of the constitution.

        Regarding Paul’s treating people for free, that’s nice, but he may decide to putting down riots across the country as he takes away most labor rights.

        You mean as opposed to putting down riots across the country as Obama is doing?

        Do you really believe states have the right to make laws that bring back child labor abuse?

        No I don’t, but like I pointed out to Woody, the United States was fonded on the preservatini of the rights of indiviodual states to make their own laws.

        States already have the right to make laws regarding elections.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 16, 2011, 4:56 pm

        “But the US does stand for ‘The United States’. If you want to abolish the states, start a campaign and see how far that gets you.”

        Shingo, that’s an aphorism that is almost entirely devoid of content. The fact that there are states is irrelevant to the question of what power we want those states to have in a federal system, where the central government is purposefully supreme.

        “The Constitution was never intended to centralize health care and education.”

        It is foolish to talk about the “intent” of the Constitution. (1) It is the product of thousands of people over hundreds of years, all of them with different intents. (2) Nothing in the document limits the exercise of power to any one person or group of people’s “intent.” (3) By its terms, the Constitution gives to the federal government enormous power, including all that is necessary and proper to regulate interstate trade and the general welfare , which grants of power is more than enough to make even complete centralization of education and healthcare absolutely constituional. If you want to argue whether it is wise or not, that is another issue, but one in which the constitution is a non-factor.

        “If teachers want to start preaching in public schools, let the parents decide if they want that for their children or not.”

        Nonsense. It is a clearly illegal unconstitutional practice; one which the law has taken out of the hands of the people, the state or the teachers. Any parent who wants prayer should have the right to start their own schools provided they provide a sufficient secular education, and can add any prayer or religion on top of that (but not in place of it… I think that schools that, for example, teach creationism rather than science, should not satisfy the laws requiring school-age children attend school).

      • dumvitaestspesest
        December 16, 2011, 6:01 pm

        So you want the full control of the Monster, parasatic state?
        Scary.
        You did not notice that whatever State fully controls, usually has some very serious problems.

      • Shingo
        December 16, 2011, 7:13 pm

        The fact that there are states is irrelevant to the question of what power we want those states to have in a federal system, where the central government is purposefully supreme.

        Sorry Woody, but you seem to have things backwards. It’s for teh states to decide how much power they are willing to hand over to the federal government, not the other way around.

        2) Nothing in the document limits the exercise of power to any one person or group of people’s “intent.

        Actually, it limits the extent of power by any one person or group of people’s “intent.

        (3) By its terms, the Constitution gives to the federal government enormous power, including all that is necessary and proper to regulate interstate trade and the general welfare , which grants of power is more than enough to make even complete centralization of education and healthcare absolutely constituional.

        I beg to differ. The Constitution gives to the federal government minimal authority necessary to regulate interstate trade and the general welfare, not power to dictate it to the states.

        It is a clearly illegal unconstitutional practice; one which the law has taken out of the hands of the people, the state or the teachers.

        Actually the law has not taken this out of the hands of the people, otherwise there would be no such thing as religious freedom.

      • Citizen
        December 18, 2011, 4:07 pm

        Problem is the Feds have not been implementing immigration law for many years, so some states most impacted at borders have done so.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 19, 2011, 4:27 pm

        Shingo,

        “Sorry Woody, but you seem to have things backwards. It’s for teh states to decide how much power they are willing to hand over to the federal government, not the other way around.”

        false. By adopting the Constitution, the states have already ceded this power, which is inherent in the document.

        “Actually, it limits the extent of power by any one person or group of people’s “intent.”

        I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Please restate.

        “I beg to differ. The Constitution gives to the federal government minimal authority necessary to regulate interstate trade and the general welfare, not power to dictate it to the states.”

        You are wrong. The Constitution grants the federal government all power “necessary and proper” to accomplish those goals. Nowhere does it limit the exercise of power to “minimal” authority, nor does it define what constitutes “interstate trade,” “general welfare,” or “necessary and proper,” leaving it up to the political branches to do so. The case law on these points are clear.

        “Actually the law has not taken this out of the hands of the people, otherwise there would be no such thing as religious freedom.”

        False. The state has no religious freedom. Only individuals and non-state organizations do. As a consequence, when a teacher or school board or school adminstrator acts in those state roles, they do not have religious freedom, as a state actor. In their private lives, they do. But even the entirety of the population — short of enacting a constitutional amendment allowing it — has the ability to direct or permit the exercise by a state actor of a religious freedom that no state actor legal may exercise.

        Again, the case law on this point is clear and well established.

      • Citizen
        December 16, 2011, 11:00 pm

        stopaipac, you are taking Paul’s position on the issues you mention to the extreme; he is much more nuanced than you suggest. He does not like our current government-big corporation “partnership” which is moving towards fascism with a welfare face and Krupp heart.

      • Citizen
        December 17, 2011, 9:10 am

        Ron Paul has been against corporate welfare and welfare for the rich for 30 years, at least. He wants to kill regs that give corporations incentives to have their products made overseas, instead of in the US.

      • dahoit
        December 17, 2011, 1:20 pm

        Yeah,an honest and righteous doctor is gonna let polluters run amok,like all the previous criminals have.
        Do you have a neoconlib handbook that you are reading from,or are you just a sheeple?Are you the con,or the mark?

      • dahoit
        December 19, 2011, 11:49 am

        And how many rivers,lakes and gulfs has the EPA prevented pollution in?And FEMA,their great job in N.Orleans deserves your support,and the FDA is hard at work protecting Americans from all those poisonous big pharma crap that they advertise all the time with the two page side effects,and the FCC has prevented media monopolies,and the DEducation has improved our learning system,and Nafta Cafta have really improved our employment and economic well being right?Wrong,they have all become enrichment schemes for big business,and not one has done the job intended.Oh,yeah,how about that celebrated Civil Rights Act of 64,that has rescued our minority population from ghettos,jail and unemployment?Not.Joke times indeed.

    • dumvitaestspesest
      December 16, 2011, 3:11 pm

      What is wrong with that??
      Does the fact that he does not want to be a policeman and constantly monitor your daily activites bother you??
      You want to be controlled, monitored, treated like a slave??
      Does the fact that he thinks more about his job as being a Servant , who serves its society, its country , not as the Almighty Master, who thinks he deserves a very special , unique treatment, bother you??
      Does the fact that he says simple , undilluted, not manipulated, not twisted Truth bother you??
      Do you think it would be better for all of us, if he sold his soul to the Lobby, and started talking like pre-programmed parrot, whatever the Lobby wanted him to say??
      If you really think so, then, you are already made yourself into a slave.

  9. Justice Please
    December 16, 2011, 2:57 pm

    “Who else is condemning the use of drones? Who else is condemning the Patriot Act? Who else is talking about our endless wars? Who else is condemning the runup to an Iran war? Who else is saying that terrorists attack us because we’re bombing their countries?
    Again, who else says this stuff? Who contests the belief that Iran has a bomb? Who stands up for Muslims around the world? Who understands Iran’s desire to counter the saber-rattling? Who says that Israel has 300 nukes?”

    And every self-styled “progressive” and “liberal” needs to give Paul credit for this stance! You do not need to vote for him, but give credit where credit is due! Only with Paul getting the Republican nomination are Obama and the Democratic party, which has the domestic policy more in line with your views, forced to answer Paul on those most vital issues Phil just quoted. If on the other hand someone like Gingrich gets nominated, Obama can freeride into a second term and just continue his strategy of talking smoothly and don’t do a thing against war crimes, imperialism, torture, surveillance, bankster bailouts.

    • W.Jones
      December 16, 2011, 3:36 pm

      “Only with Paul getting the Republican nomination are Obama and the Democratic party, which has the domestic policy more in line with your views, forced to answer Paul on those most vital issues Phil just quoted.”

      Good point. Go Ron Paul! :)

      • Citizen
        December 16, 2011, 11:02 pm

        Yes, it is a good point.

      • dahoit
        December 19, 2011, 11:51 am

        His policies are now being reluctantly expressed by the MSM,a development unseen in the last ten years.Very important.

    • Chu
      December 16, 2011, 4:11 pm

      He definitely deserves credit for voicing these issues. During the debates, the other candidates didn’t argue his points, because he was clear in his message. Bachman, a one-note candidate (obamacare), attempted to and her point was weak.

      • Citizen
        December 16, 2011, 11:05 pm

        Basically Bachmann said if we followed Paul that would make America defenseless. He’d have ripped her to shreds with facts if they could have had more time, starting with the fact we spend more on “defense” that most of the world combined–8 times more than China alone, the next biggest spender in terms of percentage of GDP, if memory serves. All those bases, etc.

      • john h
        December 17, 2011, 3:06 am

        Just how weak she was on Iran and war/peace is highlighted very effectively in this RT video. For this start at 3.28.

    • dahoit
      December 17, 2011, 12:41 pm

      Maybe that Russian Iranian sodium story is part of a pushback on his non Nuke claims.
      The Ziomonsters never sleep,as they scheme and plot like Shakespeares witches.

  10. Justice Please
    December 16, 2011, 3:11 pm

    Oh and Phil, since you mention the envirnonment – all those wars and gigantic military machine are hurting the environment very much. Electing Ron Paul would make the planet more happy than electing Obama: The latter didnt really help the environment AND didnt stop the wars.

    • stopaipac
      December 16, 2011, 4:05 pm

      where does Phil mention the environment in his post? I did and Woody does. Not Phil.
      Pay attention, please.

      • tree
        December 16, 2011, 4:49 pm

        where does Phil mention the environment in his post? I did and Woody does. Not Phil. Pay attention, please.

        From Phil’s post:

        No I can’t stand his position on global warming, that could be a dealbreaker for me.

        Just sayin’.

      • libra
        December 16, 2011, 4:59 pm

        stopaipac: “where does Phil mention the environment in his post? I did and Woody does. Not Phil.
Pay attention, please.”

        Oh dear stopaipac, guess who’s not paying attention? This is what Phil said:

        “No I can’t stand his position on global warming, that could be a dealbreaker for me.”

    • libra
      December 16, 2011, 5:01 pm

      Very good points Justice Please.

    • Charon
      December 16, 2011, 6:09 pm

      Justice Please, war most certainly effects the environment. If it’s poison for humans, it’s poison for the planet. Like DU munitions and white phosphorous for example. All life on Earth could benefit from humanity reducing its carbon footprint and being greener. And I don’t doubt that some of our actions have an effect on aspects of the weather (like for example acid rain). If knowledge has taught me anything recently, it is to question anything ‘scientific’ when it is politicians embracing it. Especially the US Congress, a den of notorious liars who sell out to the highest bidder. The proceeds of a carbon tax go right back in to the pocketbooks for the elite. Another unnecessary squeeze that the public willingly buys into because they disguised it as saving the environment.

      There is no majority scientific consensus on climate change, contrary to popular MSM-influenced belief. In normal low Earth orbits, Astronauts cannot see any evidence of human civilization in daylight. The Earth is huge and in the grand scheme of things, were are nothing to it. But we are introducing poisons that could eventually be the death of us. Money can buy scientific opinion which can be spun out of context to support an agenda.

      In the 70’s it was global cooling coupled with an ice age theory. The ice age became popular then and it was said that it was coming again. One thing to keep in mind about the ice age is that there is no proof it even happened, not the way they said it did at least. Now you got global warming which is more popularly known as ‘climate change’ because warm areas are unusually cooling. And we’ve had strange weather lately. But so has Saturn and Jupiter. Did humans cause that too? “Recorded History” is selfish from a historical perspective. Because history wasn’t always recorded. That doesn’t mean this hasn’t happened before. If you buy into the green house thing, read about planet Venus. Obviously Venus to Earth isn’t Apples to Apples because it’s made of different stuff and rotates retrograde (and slowly) but still..

      Whitley Strieber, an author of fictional novels, invented global warming in 1998. He claims a strange possibly non-human man visited him and told him about it. He also claims he was abducted by UFOs in the 80s. Strieber told Art Bell about it on Coast to Coast AM and from there it went viral.

      Ron Paul’s position on climate change is the same as mine and IMO rational. None of the other candidates would dare consider ending subsidies for oil companies and all would go to war to protect oil assets. Why would anybody trust them to be serious about reducing our carbon footprint then? The politicians behind this campaign are big spending hypocrites who won’t reduce their own carbon footprint but still ask the middle class to reduce theirs.

      • Citizen
        December 16, 2011, 11:10 pm

        Ron Paul’s detractors would prefer more of those three-headed and other hugely deformed babies coming out of the wombs of Iraqi women these days due to our military use of chemicals in weapons; such creatures should soon be coming out of Palestinian wombs too–it takes a few years to get that kind of pollution going. That’s a real live now “carbon footprint.”

      • RoHa
        December 16, 2011, 11:22 pm

        “Whitley Strieber, an author of fictional novels, invented global warming in 1998. ”

        Eh? The idea had been around since the 1880s. Paul Erlich mentioned in in 1968.

        But it only got off the gournd when Margaret Thatcher jumped on it as a means of attacking the mine workers’ unions.

        link to john-daly.com

        1998 was when the warming that started in the mid-70s stopped.

  11. DICKERSON3870
    December 16, 2011, 3:46 pm

    If anyone has been considering making a contribution to the Ron Paul campaign, now is the time to do so. He needs to make a good showing next month in Iowa and New Hampshire, so that he can carry forward the antiwar message.
    Ron Paul 2012 Official Campaign Website - link to ronpaul2012.com

  12. Chu
    December 16, 2011, 4:01 pm

    I’m surprised how Paul has been able to openly discuss Israel and it’s policies.
    I can’t recall a candidate in recent history who was so candid with the special relationship. (He has a tactful way of discussing Israel in these debates.)
    With hope, his candidness begins to get the gears turning for the media lap-doggies.

    • Citizen
      December 17, 2011, 9:19 am

      Yes, he says Israel has a right to be sovereign, a right to defend itself, to make its own decisions without US pressure, and he quotes Israeli leaders who’ve said Israel does not need US foreign aid, and he recommends we should end all of it, and we should not tell Israel what to do. He points out Israel has 300 war nukes while the Arab states surrounding it have none. In his impromptu in Iowa, he did not directly address the fact Israel is # 1 receiver of US aid and that all of this aid to Israel has been no impediment to Israel doing exactly what it wants to do in the main, the outstanding example being the settlement expansions. Has anybody seen any reaction to his answers about aid to Israel in the news? I have not.

      • CloakAndDagger
        December 17, 2011, 10:38 am

        @Citizen

        The only reaction that I have seen is from the other republican contenders – mainly Bachman and Santorum. What pleases me no end is seeing that those reactions, not unlike the infamous Giuliani outburst during the 2008 debates, are not resonating with the general public.

        Times are indeed changing!

      • dahoit
        December 17, 2011, 1:26 pm

        His points are true,that Israels domestic and foreign affairs are its right as a sovereign nation,and that our domestic and foreign affairs are ours.
        I wonder if the good doctor was a fan of Star Trek and the Prime Directive?I am.

  13. eljay
    December 16, 2011, 4:48 pm

    I like Ron Paul and I thought he nailed some points very well. I can only imagine his frustration at having to deal with neocons and nitwits and assorted baiters, but I really wish he’d be more careful when speaking in order to avoid stumbling over his words and coming off as a bit of a scatterbrain. Perception is everything, and given the fact that many (most?) people are swayed by style over substance (Obama, anyone?), Paul’s loss of “gloss” detracts from his message.

    In my humble opinion only, of course. :-)

    • libra
      December 16, 2011, 5:08 pm

      eljay: “…but I really wish he’d be more careful when speaking in order to avoid stumbling over his words and coming off as a bit of a scatterbrain.”

      It may not matter too much, might even be a plus. After all, Dubya got elected.

      • eljay
        December 16, 2011, 6:57 pm

        >> After all, Dubya got elected.

        True. The difference, in my opinion, is that Dubya was saying what many (most?) people wanted to hear, while Ron Paul isn’t. Maybe I’m wrong. I sure hope so.

      • RoHa
        December 16, 2011, 10:52 pm

        “After all, Dubya got elected.”

        He did? A lot of us were watching closely at the time, and didn’t see that.

    • Charon
      December 16, 2011, 6:18 pm

      I share that opinion, eljay. To be fair, he’s coming up with his responses in real time. The neocons and the questioners are resorting to their usual rhetorical tricks. They quote him out of context and spin around his words. Find one thing out of place to derail everything. “You said that you are an X, but you support Y. How can you support Y and still say you are an X?” Something like that. I personally can see through the BS tricks these people use, but have to think about my responses. I can’t come up with them in realtime. I’m amazed that RP can. I can’t speak for the masses though, who I am sure will perceived him as stumbling over his words.

    • gazacalling
      December 17, 2011, 9:46 am

      I think that’s true.

      But Ron Paul’s run now is just to burnish the brand for his son Rand, who is the real presidential material.

      • dahoit
        December 17, 2011, 1:29 pm

        Enough political dynasty crap.Let Rand rise or fall on his own policy decisions.
        The good doctors track record of American patriotism works for me.

  14. stevieb
    December 16, 2011, 5:36 pm

    IMHO if Americans want change they need to vote outside the Rep/Democratic tyranny. IF that were to ever happen – it wouldn’t take long to find out who the enemies of the U.S really are…

    • Charon
      December 16, 2011, 6:33 pm

      Right, left. Good, evil. Id and Ego. Love and Hate. Yin and Yang. Republican and Democrat. Duality. There is a reason why there are two dominant political parties in every form of government.

      Think of it in terms of brain lobes. You have a left brain and a right brain. The left side is more primitive than the right side. It is more logic and mathematic oriented. The right side is more creative. We are literally two people, read about split brain studies. It’s quite interesting. One side is dominant over the other. The business class tend to be predominantly left-brained. Same with psychopaths. Another analogy is liberty and justice. Lady Justice is blind and has a scale. Lady Liberty is liberated and free.

      If we all concentrate and ‘set aside’ the differences between our brains and harness them as one, it would be quite empowering (and enlightening). As long as the political system is made up of two opposing parties (who have more similarities than differences, they just don’t realize it) then we will never be free. So yeah, if a strong third party with androgynous values (and IMO, even though Ron Paul identifies as a Rep. he is pretty androgynous) won the US presidency… The game is over.

      • Citizen
        December 16, 2011, 11:21 pm

        Mmmmm, I write and paint with my right hand, and I throw with it too, but I fire a rifle or bow as a leftie, and I box also as a leftie, but fire a pistol as a rightie. I kick with my right foot. I do less well in math and hard sciences than in the arts, humanities, soft sciences. What does all that mean?

      • dahoit
        December 17, 2011, 12:34 pm

        Yeah,I eat,write,smoke(good stuff)paint with my left and do everything else with my right,throw,hammer,screw(non sexual)kick etc.
        Uncognitive dissonance.

    • dahoit
      December 17, 2011, 1:33 pm

      Isn’t Dr.Paul outside the parameters expressed by our masters?
      If he was not a Republican(or demo),do you think his ideas would be( reluctantly )fodder for the MSM?This way they have to listen to him,and he can’t be ignored .
      Did Gus Hall ever be quoted favorably by the MSM?

  15. Oscar
    December 16, 2011, 8:32 pm

    Phil, I’ve greatly admired your journalism for the last two decades and I’m very grateful for this terrific analysis. But isn’t your top-of-mind issue the war of ideas in the Middle East? This is the first I’m hearing that the global warming controversy is a political deal breaker for you.

    Mondoweiss has to endorse Dr. Paul. He’s the only hope to bring sanity to the region, to our nation. He is brave, patriotic, consistent, sane, intelligent and astute on all issues that those of us in the mondoweiss community are passionate about.

    • Citizen
      December 16, 2011, 11:29 pm

      I agree, Oscar, and I hope Phil finds the time to check out Ron Paul’s nuanced views on the issues he disagrees with–Ron Paul will be on the Jay Leno Show tonight–show is one hour and starts at 1135PM EST—in a few minutes…

      • dahoit
        December 17, 2011, 1:35 pm

        Watch out Dr.Paul,Leno sucks.Another overpaid shill for the criminals.

      • CloakAndDagger
        December 17, 2011, 2:10 pm

        They all suck. Nonetheless, his interview of Ron Paul was better than any of the others. He asked perceptive questions, then allowed Ron Paul to describe his viewpoints without interruption.

      • dahoit
        December 19, 2011, 11:54 am

        Yes,Leno was better than I thought he would be,and Dr.Paul was magnificent.

    • gazacalling
      December 17, 2011, 9:48 am

      Yeah, I know. Global warming a dealbreaker? That seems a bit of a stretch. Shouldn’t Climategate give us pause on that issue anyway? Admittedly I don’t really follow this issue closely…

      • jayn0t
        December 18, 2011, 6:29 pm

        Well, I DO follow the issue of global warming closely, and I was surprised at Weiss’s comment about Ron Paul’s view – “I can’t stand his position on global warming, that could be a dealbreaker for me”. Whereas I expect airheads like Naomi Klein to parrot the party line, intelligent leftists should be more discriminating. Alexander Cockburn, for example. Why? A hint: climate scientists use the phrase ‘scientific consensus’. Real scientists don’t.

      • gazacalling
        December 21, 2011, 5:24 pm

        Oooh, good point jaynot. That phrase is a contraction-in-terms, no? Science is the process of skeptically testing hypotheses with evidence. Dogmatically enforcing one viewpoint is the opposite of science.

        Readers of this site are naturally skeptics of enforced dogmatisms…

      • teta mother me
        December 21, 2011, 6:12 pm

        “Science is the process of skeptically testing hypotheses with evidence. Dogmatically enforcing one viewpoint is the opposite of science.

        Readers of this site are naturally skeptics of enforced dogmatisms…”

        Richard Land & Jim Wallis appeared on C Span Washington Journal this morning, attempting to out-do each other in declaring that US practices religious freedom/separation of church and state. One of them — astonishingly, Land said, “the founding fathers were enlightenment thinkers, some of the greatest enlightenment thinkers in the world were on the east coast in the 18th century.”

        Enlightenment thinkers “skeptically test hypotheses with evidence.”

        Benny Morris has explained Israel’s ‘revisionist historians’ as an essential process of doing history (at 4 min then 6 min), as new documents become available which, combined with already revealed facts, place the whole in a new perspective, with the purpose only of revealing the facts of what happened “without moralizing or politicizing” in order to “let the reader decide” (at 7 min), with one exception–“obviously” one can make a moral judgment about Hitler.” (at 6.30 min) With one exception, Israel’s historians claim to study history skeptically, testing hypotheses with evidence.

        Several historians who have examined primary documents extensively have produced new facts and alternative perspectives on Hitler, but their views are not permitted to be discussed in the United States and are criminalized in some European states.

        American public school children are taught holocaust, from programs prepared by the US Holocaust Museum. The holocaust narrative admits and permits NO skepticism, no “testing of the hypotheses with evidence” that might contradict the received narrative. What is taught in US taxpayer funded public schools is, therefore, a dogma.

        That dogma is enforced by the mandate of the US State Department office that monitors antisemitism.

        That is to say, in the United States public school system, imitating the founding fathers of the United States by “testing the hypotheses” of the holocaust “with evidence” is proscribed by an office of the State Department that is paid for by US taxpayers!

  16. chris o
    December 16, 2011, 9:20 pm

    What I find interesting is that Ron Paul, using the terminology of the chest-thumping “patriots”, is a Blame American First-er all the way on foreign policy. I don’t think there is any room between him and Noam Chomsky in a general assessment of US imperial and military policy. And he never backs down, he doesn’t dampen the language, he is very plain. YET he is elected time and time again as a REpublican from Texas!

    And he makes these statements that no leading Democrat would make – what you may hear from a Kucinich of Michael Moore or Glenn Greenwald – at the Republican debates. And he gets applause! (Sometimes some boos, too but still.)

    Brett Baer (the moderator) was war mongering to the extreme in the questions on Iran. He’s an objective journalist?

  17. dumvitaestspesest
    December 16, 2011, 9:25 pm

    This short speech should be a big warning for the Americans.
    Euro-gulag is falling, many countries are dragged into poverty , anarchy and “austerity measures”. Some are forced to help pay “debts” of other countries. Ultimately this money will go into the pockets of the euro-mafia made of bankers and politicians
    Euro-politicans/gangsters just do not care. Why they do not care??
    Because this was their goal from the beginning.
    Building the Empire, 4th Reich on the remnants of Europe.

  18. dumvitaestspesest
    December 16, 2011, 9:54 pm

    Great Britain is trying slowly back out of this Euro-Zoo.
    How on earth people got in this mess. It is such a disaster.

    • dahoit
      December 17, 2011, 12:22 pm

      Is the problem Europe,where they still make things of value,or Britain where they have eschewed that to become a bankster state?
      I know where Cameron and Farage stand,right behind the thieving banksters.

  19. Bandolero
    December 16, 2011, 11:06 pm

    @Phil
    Regarding to Ron Paul’s libertarian economic ideas I find it interesting that you didn’t have to say a word about the fiscal policy concepts of Ron Paul. I would find these important. Stopping the war machine and cutting down senseless central government spending could have a tremendous effect on getting fiscal liquidity to be available for social projects on local levels. They could argueably be far larger if states an communities would convert the central taxes into local ones – if they decide so. That would be fully in line with Ron Paul’s ideas of decentralized government.

    Regarding Ron Paul’s position on global warming, I can’t see any difference except on rhetoric against all the other candidates. Barack Obama for example had a very tough rhetoric on fighting global warming. In Copenhagen Obama tried to make it to money and trick the Chinese to buy “pollution rights” from the US. Obama’s giantic wall street swindle to make the Chinese and other developing countries pay money to the US and Europe for “pollution rights” didn’t work and all the huge CO2-stock-market-infrastructure – see Chicago Climate Exchange – all set up to fill wall street pockets, immediately collapsed because of this.

    Obama and the rest of the US policy elite then, see, see, completely backtracked from any fight against global warming. Now in Durban, the Obama-led US was a complete break and against any meaningful global warming agreement – stating fighting global warming could damage the US economy. The only thing what Obama really did was promoting saving energy. But that has nothing to do with global warming – it’s just that oil is expensive and too much consumption hurts the economy.

    So except the rhetoric I can’t see any difference between Ron Paul and Barack Obama on climate change, except maybe, that with Ron Paul as president the US finances would look better and so it would be easier to find some money for the Green Climate Fund agreed to by the international community in Cancun.

  20. piotr
    December 17, 2011, 12:03 am

    “But none of this has addressed voters’ big concern over a Paul philosophy that fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland.”

    International Skew Polling investigated the issue of exceptionalism. Among 100 countries the polling had to be suspended in 90 due to linguistic problems. Look what happens after translating “exceptionalism” into Polish, and results back into English:
    self-centredness; selfishness; egocentricity; self-seeking; egoism; egocentrism; self-interest; self-concern; self-centeredness; egotism

    Now we can ask respondents: is your country self-centered, selfish, egocentric, self-seeking etc. Clearly, asking hoi-polloi such questions could lead to confusion or, even worse, physical assault on the pollsters. Therefore the poll was conducted by selecting 10 highly ranked philosophers in each nation, and collecting answers only from those who are conversant with the concept. 94 countries were exceptional.

    To cite one of the justification, Estonian exceptionalism is justified by the fact that only Estonia is a true embodiment of the Livonian spirit (names of countries and regions altered). Polish semiotician explained that the supposition that Poland is not exceptional cannot be adequately translated into Polish, even in a hypothetical form. Hence a fairly long list of invectives used during election campaign does not include “denies national exceptionalism”.

    By the way, there exists a convincing archaeologic evidence that “the wheel” was invented in Poland, at least the concept of a wheeled vehicle. A pot attributed to Funnel-Beaker culture seems to show wheeled carts although curiously flattened. Or not so curiously: wheels were invented at least 1000 years before first rudiments of perspective. Since those days, Poland remains the best embodiment of Funnel-Beakerian spirit.

  21. CloakAndDagger
    December 17, 2011, 2:31 am

    Ron Paul just said that Michelle Bachman hates muslims on National TV! Then he said Santorum hates gays and muslims! I nearly fell off my chair laughing! This guy doesn’t pull any punches – honesty above political correctness! I love it!

    Here is the video segment where he talks about our foreign policy, the Arab spring, Israel, and the propaganda that is priming us to attack Iran. The Bachman stuff is at 4:00. It is hilarious!

    That was part 3 of three segments. Here are the first two:


    link to youtube.com

    I wonder what the headlines will be tomorrow!

    • dumvitaestspesest
      December 17, 2011, 7:13 am

      Bachman is such an ignorant phony that it is unbelievable how she managed to get squeezed in this whole presidential campaign.
      I’m not even talking about Rick Perry or Santorum.
      Bunch of first class ignoramuses.

      • gazacalling
        December 17, 2011, 9:53 am

        Ignoramuses indeed! I was so depressed watching that display of ignorance on stage amongst the journalists and candidates. Journalists especially. It’s one thing to be running for office — you have to say certain things to appeal to ignorant voters’ prejudices. OK, fine, as long as you know what you’re doing. But journalists saying things that aren’t true! Am I wrong to find that even more outrageous? At least politicians have responsibilities to run things, journalists don’t have any tough decisions or responsibility to speak of.

    • Citizen
      December 17, 2011, 9:32 am

      Yep, I saw that, CloakAndDagger–And he tells the simple truth so easily, as if everybody actually knew it for how can they not see it? Will be interesting to watch how Bachmann and Santorum spin what he said about them. And if the MSM discusses it in any detail.

      • CloakAndDagger
        December 17, 2011, 10:31 am

        @Citizen,

        You are right. It certainly flustered Leno! He mumbled “Oh that’s not good!” and quickly moved on. I bet he wasn’t prepared for that answer – I know that I wasn’t!

    • Bandolero
      December 17, 2011, 11:25 am

      Have you seen Paul Krugman’s attack on Ron Paul’s monetary policy lately in the New York Times?

      Paul Krugman attacks Ron Paul’s opposition against unwarranted expansions of the monetary base in that piece. Ron Paul’s critic is based on the argument that unwarranted expansions of the monetary base – the policy of cannons and butter – lead to bubbles. So he predicted the housing bubble, unintendent consequences and economic woes when the giant bubble of over-valued bubble bursts in an argument with Alan Greenspan back in 2004.

      Paul Krugman says in the New York Times the money printing “after Lehman Brothers fell” didn’t cause yet inflation, and because the Austrian school – which he assigns Ron Paul to- warns about inflation resulting from monetary bubbles that proves Ron Paul wrong.

      What Paul Krugman does in his dishonest piece is to completely ignore the fact, that Ron Paul was proven right when the giant bubble burst with Lehman Brothers bancruptcy. Ron Paul was right with this years before it happened and Alan Greenspan – and Paul Krugman in a way, too – were proven completely wrong.

      Check it out yourself:

      Ron Paul warns Alan Greenspan of the great housing credit bubble in 2004

      link to truthisliberty.blogspot.com

      Paul Krugman critisizes Ron Paul for his critics on the large FED credit based expansion of the monetary base, but completely “forgets” that it was the credit bubble that led to the Lehman Brothers fall and the economic downturn:

      link to nytimes.com

      It’s sheer unbelievable. I seldomly have seen something more dishonest than that piece of Paul Krugman.

      • dahoit
        December 17, 2011, 12:16 pm

        Krugman is all part of the problem of tribalism and loyalty to his compatriots in the banking industry,because any accounting of the Fed will deprive the looters of their ill gotten loot.
        Another product of the Poison Ivy League of overhyped and underwhelming intellect.

      • Inanna
        December 18, 2011, 2:24 am

        I don’t agree. I think that Krugman has a good analysis on what went wrong in the GFC and some of his positions are spot on – like the size of the fiscal stimulus that was necessary early on to get us out of this. On this, many economists agree with him – including Stiglitz, Brad DeLong etc. Where I don’t agree with Krugman is in the type of regulation we require for the financial sector. He thinks that we should just have stronger regulation without any changes to the size of banks, whereas I think that the size of banks (so that none are too big to fail) is an important element of that reform. Some googling will show you that other economists of a Keynesian bent also disagree with Krugman on this – e.g. Simon Johnson and James Kwak of Basaeline Scenario etc.

      • Shingo
        December 18, 2011, 4:15 am

        I think that Krugman has a good analysis on what went wrong in the GFC and some of his positions are spot on – like the size of the fiscal stimulus that was necessary early on to get us out of this.

        That simply bullshit. The only factor that the size of the fiscal stimulus would have affected would have been how far teh can woudl have been kicked down the road. The economic crisis resulted from the burting of the housing bubble, and the end of real estate speculation and the assumption that home prices woudl continue to rise.

        A bigger stimulus would not have affected the liquidity problem.

      • Citizen
        December 18, 2011, 4:11 pm

        Big banks need to be broken up and Insurance Industry should not be exempt from Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

      • dahoit
        December 19, 2011, 12:02 pm

        The bankster replenishment act.

      • Inanna
        December 18, 2011, 2:17 am

        You’re not understanding what you are reading. Krugman is correct when he says that in the Austrian school, inflation should rise as the monetary base increases but in the last few years that has not been the case in the US which has had moderate increases in inflation. (This is precisely because we are in a liquidity trap, where demand is deficient even at a zero interest rate.) It would be great if people would look at what actually happens in the economy and realize that both monetarism and austrian economics have been debunked by what we have seen since the onset of the GFC.

      • Shingo
        December 18, 2011, 3:12 am

        Actually it’s you that isn’t looking at what’s happening Inanna,

        We have indeed seen the affects of infaltion biting hard. In fact, it was inflation that was the primary cause of the Egyptian uprising, which stafrted as a bread riot due to the fact that the US dollar was not buying the same amount of wheat, thereby making it more scarce.

        The clearlest evidence is visible in the rise in commodities, especially argricultural and precious metals. It’s the increased money supply that has led to this outcome.

        Governments the world over are inflating their currencies. The inflation of the US dollar is also having an adverse effect.

        So no, austrian economics has not been debunked in any way shape or form.

      • Inanna
        December 18, 2011, 4:11 am

        Shingo, I was talking about the United States, where inflation has been at around 1.5% per year for the last few years despite huge increases in the monetary base. Austrian as well as monetarist economics failed. I disagree with you that Austrian economics works in either Egypt or the US. It plainly does not. In order to make the case for Austrian economics, you would have to show a correlation between the monetary base and inflation in the US and other economies that is clearly not in the data. I’ve already made the case for the US above, here is the case for Egypt:

        You can see Egypt’s inflation rate here:

        link to indexmundi.com.html

        It has gone up slightly in the last few years from a very low rate in the early part of this decade but it still below historical highs. Much of the reason for that were exogenous to the Egyptian economy – having to do with the tripling of wheat prices in 2007, the wheat drought in 2010 (when Russia banned wheat exports) which also raised prices, and the general rises in food, beverage and diesel prices generally in that period, particularly in 2009 when the GoE also lowered subsidies on several items. Look at the inflation table and you’ll see the big jump in inflation in 2007 (and after even though the Egyptian interest rates were flat that year:

        link to indexmundi.com.html

        The impact of commodity prices on nominal GDP is not a dependable one so your 3rd paragraph does not hold.

        I can’t find a recent source of date for annual growth of the monetary base but this paper:

        link to mof.gov.eg

        shows large increases in the monetary base during the mid-2000’s (up to 07/08) that did not too adversely effect inflation (p10) – in fact in that period Egypt had quite low inflation historically.

      • Inanna
        December 18, 2011, 4:23 am

        By the way, governments are not trying to “inflate their currencies”. The US has a policy of non-intervention in its exchange rate, choosing to target an inflation level and has undergone continual depreciation of its currency in the last 30 years. China keeps its exchange rate artificially low and the only reason that many currencies have appreciated is that they have done so against the dollar, which has fallen. And with interest falling in many countries in response to the GFC, I don’t see many countries trying to “inflate their currencies”.

      • Shingo
        December 18, 2011, 4:57 am

        Shingo, I was talking about the United States, where inflation has been at around 1.5% per year for the last few years despite huge increases in the monetary base.

        That figure is articificial and distorted on many levels. The US has had the luxury for decades of being able to export inflation, thought those days are fast comming to an end. The consequences of the huge increased in money supply has been largely abssorbed by China, who are buying up US debt, but once they decide that the cost benefit of devaluing their currency to support the US economy is no longer sustainable, iflation will sky rocket in the US.

        Austrian is being affirmed every day.

        I disagree with you that Austrian economics works in either Egypt or the US.

        You could disagree, but you’d be wrong. The example is very simple. Egypt has been purchasing wheat by using US dollars (in the form of economic aid). The sum of the aid has not changed, but the price of wheat has.

        In order to make the case for Austrian economics, you would have to show a correlation between the monetary base and inflation in the US and other economies that is clearly not in the data.

        On the contrary. The US dollar has a unique status in that it has enjoyed the status of being the default currency of international trade for a number fo decades. Thus the correlation between the monetary base and inflation has remained hidden due to demand for the curency, but once that demand dries up, then we’ll see the real numbers.

        If you believe that the 14 trillion dollar US debt has to be repaid and accept that there is insufficient tax revenue being generated to repay it, then you cannot possibly deny that inflation is much higher than we are being shown. This remains a realuity no matter what ecobnomic model you subscribe to, whether it be Keynsian, Friedman or Austrian.

        Foreugn nations are not buying US bonbs which is why the Federal Reserve is printing money to purchase them. Who’s going to want tp buy US bonds as zero % interest when infaltion is out of control?

        Food prices are trebding towards historical highs

        link to rba.gov.au

        The impact of commodity prices on nominal GDP is not a dependable one so your 3rd paragraph does not hold.

        What on earth are you talking about? A huge chunk of the GDP is government spending anyway. Commodity prices are rising in US dollar terms which can only mean that the US dollar is weakening.

        I can’t find a recent source of date for annual growth of the monetary base but this paper: shows large increases in the monetary base during the mid-2000’s (up to 07/08) that did not too adversely effect inflation

        Again, that is because the inflatiion has been exported. Teh eral reason we have inflation is because governments are infalting. Inflation literally means to expand, and what’s expanding is the money supply. Thus, as money loses value, prices have to rise, that is the reality. The rest is government propaganda.

        We are going to pay for all this through higher prices. The increase in prices is our share of the cost of the stimulus.

      • Shingo
        December 18, 2011, 5:03 am

        By the way, governments are not trying to “inflate their currencies”.

        Of course they are. If you expand tehmonetary base, without productivity to sustain it, you are inflating. That is as basic a concept as you can get.

        The US has a policy of non-intervention in its exchange rate, choosing to target an inflation level and has undergone continual depreciation of its currency in the last 30 years.

        Rubbish. The US policy has no affect on the descision taken by the Fed.

        China keeps its exchange rate artificially low and the only reason that many currencies have appreciated is that they have done so against the dollar, which has fallen.

        Exactly, and with the drop in the value of the dollar, and the increse in money supply, prices have to go up. The only possible explanations for prices goign up us either:

        1. Capital Growth or
        2. Inflation

        And any man on thestreet can tell you there is no capital growth in this climate.

        And with interest falling in many countries in response to the GFC, I don’t see many countries trying to “inflate their currencies”.

        You see them devaluing their currencies (via printing) to keep pace with teh fall of the dollar, so yes, they are definitely inflating.

      • Inanna
        December 18, 2011, 6:22 am

        Your comment makes very little sense and is not applicable to either the US data nor the Egyptian data on the monetary base and interest rates. What you don’t seem to realize is that despite massive increases in the money supply and the fiscal stimulus we’ve had in the US, we don’t have higher inflation because we are in a liquidity trap. In a liquidity trap, savings is actually a bad thing and we want people to not save and start spending, including the government to kick-start the stagnating economy. We don’t want Chinese savings either. With the Chinese buying our bonds, it drives up the value of the dollar, reduces exports and leads to fewer jobs. That is bad. If the Chinese stop and go buy elsewhere, that’s better for us. If you look at the most recent flow of fund release, you’ll see that the US has become a net lender to the rest of the world which means we are now financing our debt domestically. (USG net borrowing has increased but the fall in private sector net borrowing has more than offset this). We’re not importing inflation. We don’t need the Chinese to keep interest rates down. And we don’t have inflation.

      • Inanna
        December 18, 2011, 6:46 am

        ie, the Chinese are actually not doing anything good for our economy right now because right now savings are bad in a liquidity trap. If they sell our dollars, it’ll be expansionary policy for the US, we’ll probably get some on-shoring of jobs, some much needed inflation that will get the economy going again.

      • Shingo
        December 18, 2011, 6:57 am

        If they sell our dollars, it’ll be expansionary policy for the US, we’ll probably get some on-shoring of jobs, some much needed inflation that will get the economy going again.

        No, because if they sell US dollars, investment in the US will completely dry up, so there won’t be any jobs anyway. There is plenty of inflation as deomstrated by the explosion in the prices of commodities.

      • Shingo
        December 18, 2011, 7:06 am

        Your comment makes very little sense and is not applicable to either the US data nor the Egyptian data on the monetary base and interest rates.

        Only because the US government has to raise interest rates (if they want to attract investment and sell US bonds) but the US economy is too fragile to acomodate such hikes.

        What you don’t seem to realize is that despite massive increases in the money supply and the fiscal stimulus we’ve had in the US, we don’t have higher inflation because we are in a liquidity trap.

        No, we have both a liquidity trap and infaltion, but you are unable to grasp the fundamentals of what constitues inflation.

        In a liquidity trap, savings is actually a bad thing and we want people to not save and start spending, including the government to kick-start the stagnating economy.

        Rubbish. The reasons we have a liquidity trap because there are no savings. After the housing bubbel burst, many households saw their wealth (or perceived welath) dissapear and as such, they lost all sense of security and confidence. They are not spending because:

        a) they have no jobs, therefore no money
        b) they have no savings

        We do actually need people to start savign and stop spending. The US has been on the largest spending binge in history for the last decade and the chickens are comming home to roost.

        We don’t want Chinese savings either. With the Chinese buying our bonds, it drives up the value of the dollar, reduces exports and leads to fewer jobs.

        No, with Chinese buying our bonds, it stops the dollar collapsing and hides the infaltion that we’ve been exporting to ther country.

        If the Chinese stop and go buy elsewhere, that’s better for us.

        in he long run it will be, but in the short term, it will mean financial disaster and a dolalr collapse.

        If you look at the most recent flow of fund release, you’ll see that the US has become a net lender to the rest of the world which means we are now financing our debt domestically.

        Lender of what? Oh yeah, money that’s not worth the money it’s not printed on.

        When those dollars come back to our shores, we know what hits us. We have massive inflation.

      • Inanna
        December 18, 2011, 7:24 am

        Shingo, you’re wrong! Go look at the flow of funds data, which shows that the US has become a net lender (ie there is lots of capital, it’s just not doing anything!).

        link to federalreserve.gov

        Go look at both real and nominal interest rates in the US and Europe – about as close as you can get to zero in a lot of countries and actual inflation rates as well. All really moderate.

        Go look at the World Bank commodity price series which shows that commodity prices fell dramatically during the GFC, rose in the next few years and have fallen all through 2011 back to 2007 levels.

        link to siteresources.worldbank.org

        You’re wrong on the facts.

        Peace.

      • Shingo
        December 18, 2011, 12:32 pm

        It you that doesn’t have he facts Inanna,

        1. The Federal Reserve is not the US, it is a privately owned bank that has never been audited and is accountable to no one.

        2. I don’t know what you’re smoking, but the commodity prices are nowhere near 2007 levels, and falling prices have been largely due to speculation about falling demand. Gold is up from US$600 in 2007 to around US$1700 this month.

        3. Commodity prices are fluctuating due to speculation about demand, but inflation and food prices are indeed rising.

      • MRW
        December 18, 2011, 1:26 pm

        Shingo, Inanna is right and you need to educate yourself. You are mixing up thinking left over from the gold standard days–where we had to get the money in before we could spend it; hence, the high tax rates of the 1950s–with a lack of real understanding of how the monetary system works operationally TODAY since our conversion to a non-convertible currency in 1972 (meaning you can’t convert it to anything).
        link to moslereconomics.com

        Since I know you won’t read it, at least read the testimonials at the front of the book. And check out page 41. The part on Public Purpose starting on page 99 is a must read as well. (The book is 117 pages.) You could also read this article on HuffPo from 2010 to try to understand it a bit:
        link to huffingtonpost.com

        In addition to being the reserve currency, the US dollar is a sovereign currency (like the currencies of Canada, Britain, and Japan). The fact that Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal, et al, gave up their sovereign currencies for the Euro is why they are in the mess they’re in right now. The US Federal Government is a currency issuer. The 50 states, every business, every household, you and me, are currency users. The accounting rules and operations are different for both.

        If you are a video type, watch this:
        “Why You and I Can’t Spend More Than We Bring In, but the Government Can – and Probably Should”
        link to neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com

        Much more here: http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com
        or read the Naked Capitalism blog with Yves Smith.

      • Citizen
        December 18, 2011, 4:13 pm

        Exactly, Shingo.

      • Inanna
        December 19, 2011, 2:24 am

        Look, I’ve provided you with links to back up my claims, including texts, graphs etc yet you deny that? Go to page 2 of the World Bank link and you will see a table that shows commodity prices in 201o falling towards 2007 levels. Gold is not the only commodity out there. There are all the energy prices (petroleum in all its qualities, gas, coal etc) and non-energy – food and agriculture, beverages, raw materials, metals and minerals, fertilizers etc. Probably just an important, MUV is rising slowly (this is the manufacturing unit value). You are not entitled to your own facts.

        You also have no understanding of the relationship between the capital and current accounts and the flow of funds since you obviously don’t understand the significance of the US being a net lender.

        Too bad for you.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 19, 2011, 3:25 am

        MRW & Inanna,

        Shingo is right. I won’t be able to catch up with all your points, but Shingo is right.

        I saw reference to official inflation rates. Innana — do you know how they caluclate this? There are so many fudge factors in these numbers they have lost all meaning. I will give you one example: about 22% of this rate — the largest component — is comprised of housing costs. How do they calculate housing costs? They use this thing called “rental equivalent costs.” That is, they don’t calculate what it costs to own a house, but rather, what it would cost to rent the house you own. What determines rents? Rents are tightly tied to the carrying cost of a house — your monthlies. What are monthlies tied to? Interest rates. So, the lower rates are, the low the CPI is, generally speaking. Now, should the formal CPI start to rise, and should the Fed respond with higher rates, what happens to CPI? Fuel on fire.

        The fact is we are so in debt right now — the entire western world, that is — that *the* major cost of living amounts to servicing the debt. This goes for government as well as individuals. And rates are at effectively zero.

        Until they are not anymore. (See Greece. See Iceland.)

        There is no way out of this save for massive inflation. That is what the gold price is telling us.

        As for Yves Smith — I have chatted with Yves online. She doesn’t get it. She cites Japan and other deflationary scenarios. There is not time for all of this, but again, for example, Japan is not a net borrower. The high personal savings rate offsets government prolifigacy. In the US, the savings rate is about zero (was negative) and the governments at all levels hemorage money. The US ain’t Japan.

        Yves though oil was going back to $40 in 2008. She just could not fathom the massive printing that has taken place since.

        I could go on for miles, but suffice it to say that they always print. They always print.

        An inflationary depression is a coming. Ron Paul wants to take us back to a gold standard,. Probably a good thing. But the peg wont be at $1700. No, the peg will be closer to $10,000. Inflation is the only way out of the debt burden.

        Shingo is right. -N49.

        ps – Foir a thorough debunking of official stats, see John Williams site here:
        link to shadowstats.com

      • Shingo
        December 19, 2011, 4:42 am

        Thank you for the links MRW,

        I haven’t had time to read the moslereconomics.com though I certainly intend to. I read page 41 and some fundamental mistakes struck me immediately. He states that net savings of financial assets is held as some combination of actual cash, Treasury securities and member bank deposits at the Federal Reserve. The problem with this is that he assumes that:

        a) the Federal Reserve is an instrument of the Federal Government – IT IS NOT
        b) that he knows something about what it taking place at the Federal Reserve, when it is a clsely guarded secret
        c) The CBO might indeed claim they must “balance the checkbook” and make sure the government deficit equals
        our new savings
        , but only a fool would take the word of a Federal Government emloyee at their word

        After all, in 2001, Donald Rumsfeld reported that the DOD could not accout for 2.6 trillion of it’s budget. Where was the CBO’s effort to “balance
        the checkbook” then?

        He then claims that “Deficit spending means the government borrows from one person and gives it to another, so nothing new is added – it’s just a shift of money from one person to another.” As QE 1 and 2 have illustrated, this is demonstrably false. QE1 and 2 was a case of the US government also borrows from itself to give to itself, which is the mother of all acounting tricks.

        The example he gives about government selling $100 billion in Treasury securities is c classic case of Monopoly Money, because he ignores the fact that the 100 billion being held in the fed cheking accounts could already be in circulation. He’s simply counting he 100 billion twice.

        There’s an easy way to test Mosler’s theory. If budget deficits means increased savings, then the savings of Americans should today be at an all tuime high. The reality is the completel opposite.

        I did read your link to his article in the Huffington Post, at I must say, it was like entering the Wtighlight Zone.

        So according to Mosler, the There is no such thing as the Federal government running out of money. Government checks don’t ever bounce. At that point, my eyes were rolling into the back of my head. Could the same not be said for government checques from Zimbabwe?

        But taking Mosler’s argument to it’s logic conclusion, it seems there is no need for taxes or even Treasury securities. According to Mosler, and Inanna, the government has all the money it needs becasue it has a printing press. If it needs money, it need only print it.

        This is the Orwellian world of government finances. It seems that when it comes to the government, all basic laws and reality is suspended. It would be like me taking 450 out of my wallet with my right hand, and giving it to my left hand and then arguing that I now have $100.

      • MRW
        December 19, 2011, 5:16 am

        NorthOfFortyNine,

        Thanks for your reply. But I don’t really want to load this thread up with a long off-topic discussion. A couple of quick points. The private sector right now is sitting on $14 trillion in cash in the bank, apparently, and loathe to lend because of political uncertainties and the failure of this govt to (1) do a proper investigation with forensic regulators, (2) bring the 2008 CEO crooks to justice, and (3) develop a sound fiscal policy with the proper regulatory checks and balances. But the point is that the private sector equals the government deficit. As it should, to the penny.

        The concept of ‘printing money’ is from the gold standard days when more dollars were printed than there was gold to back them up. It’s been a meaningless term since we dropped gold in 1972. The US dollar, just like the Canadian dollar, is a non-convertible currency. Money is an entry on a Fed spreadsheet, where the US govt as its bank accounts (checking and savings, although they call it something else). What we lack in the US–which is what you do have in Canada and why you did not go through what we did–is a sound regulatory system and sound economic planning. In Canada, the economy is there to serve society. Here, it serves an economic index and the financial sector.

        There is no way we’re going back on the gold standard. Not a chance. It would require massive taxing before the government could spend anything. And we don’t need to do it. The US govt is a currency issuer! The problem we have here is that neither our president nor congressmen understand our monetary system. (They think it operates the way the states and businesses/households operate, and it doesn’t because the latter are currency users.) They have no clue about reserve accounting, and from a cursory search, neither does Mr. Williams.

        Anyway. We’ll just have to agree to disagree because I can’t put much time into this.

      • Shingo
        December 19, 2011, 5:31 am

        Go to page 2 of the World Bank link and you will see a table that shows commodity prices in 201o falling towards 2007 levels.

        I looked at the graph and the prices are nowhere near 2007 levels.

        Gold is not the only commodity out there.

        True. There is also silver, copper, nickel, all of which are much higher than they were in 2007. Crude oil is at $100 a barrel is back to the record highs of 2007, which at the time were driven by speculation. The food price index is much higher that it was in 2007

        You also have no understanding of the relationship between the capital and current accounts and the flow of funds since you obviously don’t understand the significance of the US being a net lender.

        Yes, a net lender of US dollars. The US dollar is the international unit of exchange and the Feneral Bank has a printing press to produce all the dollars it wants. That would not be true if the dollar was not the international unit of exchange.

        The US government could start printing 1 million dolalr bills and positng them in the mail if they wanted. There is some bizzare belief among the delfationist camp that little bits of paper created by the government, that have no intrinsic value, are somehow going to increase in value. That makes no sense when there is no limit to how many bits fo paper they want to print or how many zeros they want to add.

      • Shingo
        December 19, 2011, 5:46 am

        The private sector right now is sitting on $14 trillion in cash in the bank,

        Sorry MRW, the $14 trillion in cash is not owned by eh private sector. At least 1 trillion of it belongs to Japan and another trillion to China. If 14 trillion was sitting in a bank waiting to be spent, then we’d see investment taking place – if not in the US then certainly overseas. There isn’t any and you can’t blame the lack of a sound regulatory system and sound economic planning in the US on why 14 trillion is not being inevsted internationally.

        The concept of ‘printing money’ is from the gold standard days when more dollars were printed than there was gold to back them up. It’s been a meaningless term since we dropped gold in 1972.

        It’s a term used figuratively to express the process by which oney is created out of nothing. Even Bernanke still uses the term.

        It would require massive taxing before the government could spend anything. And we don’t need to do it. The US govt is a currency issuer!

        Again, if being a currancy issuer gave carte blanche to the government, there would be no need for tazation or the same of treasury bills. The government could simply issue all teh currencyit wants to fund it’s spending programs.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 19, 2011, 1:15 pm

        @ MRW:

        >> The private sector right now is sitting on $14 trillion in cash in the bank,

        I agree corporate cash-on-hand is high right now and I agree that the “incentive to lend” is limited. And I agree this smells a little like a liquidity trap. To help you with your point, I would also point out yields on the long treasuries. Insane.

        But — where did you get the $14 trillion number? Source?

        The critical number, at any rate, is the economy’s ability to service the debt. The only way we can meet ends these days — any by “we” I mean individuals, municaplities, states and the Federal government — along with half of europe, is by printing more money. And that’s at ultra low interest rates!!! Stop the money printing and the western economy collapses onto itself and turns into a smouldering piece of spent charcol.

        >> The concept of ‘printing money’ is from the gold standard days when more dollars were printed than there was gold to back them up. It’s been a meaningless term since we dropped gold in 1972.

        I am sorry, but this is just incorrect. “Printing money” still applies in a post gold standard world and can be defined as the expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet. When the Fed buys bonds (or pumps cash through a credit line into Europe (as it now is!!)) without an offsetting transaction, money is created out of thin air. It is printed effectively the same way as it was printed in Weimar or Yogoslavia in the end-days.

        >> There is no way we’re going back on the gold standard. Not a chance. It would require massive taxing before the government could spend anything.

        Again — incorrect. Why would it require massive taxation? (You don’t say.) All the Fed has to do is instruct the NY Fed (the member that deals with open market operations) is to bid for gold at $10,000 and offer it at $10,050. Voila — the dollar would be pegged to gold.

        >> And we don’t need to do it. The US govt is a currency issuer!

        Ah, yes! We don’t need gold because we can print money! Weimar here we come!!

        Lastly, as for Mr. Williams not know much about reserve accounting — huh? Reserve accounting is besides the point of Mr. Williams work, which is primarily concerned with the various ways in which the gov’t has fudged statistics. For example, he goes and calculates what the CPI would be today if the government used its own methods before they started to massage them to their favour.

        Regards -N49.

      • MRW
        December 19, 2011, 2:01 pm

        N49, “But — where did you get the $14 trillion number? Source?” Been thinking about it since I wrote it–I’ve been up for 36 hours trying to finish something, brain drooping–I think it was Ratigan’s show the other day.

        When your (govt) is on the gold standard, when your currency converts to a metal, you can’t spend it before you earn it; ergo: the government has to tax.

        The expression “printing money” comes from the gold standard days, just like the Weimar in 1923. When you print more than the you have gold in the bank, the value of that scrip is diminished, Only 20% (might be lower) of US money supply is available as dollars in circulation for purposes of trade. The rest is a computer entry (or the coins that the Treasury issues). If you were to pay your taxes in physical American dollars, the IRS would just shred the money, (which they do all the time) and perform a computer entry in your bank’s Federal Reserve reserve (checking) account. link to pragcap.com

        Foreign countries maintain reserve (checking) and securities (savings) accounts at the Fed, just like you and I have at our local banks. When the Fed extends credit, it simply changes numbers in its accounts at the Fed. If the foreign country wants to remove its funds, then it has to buy something with it on the open market just like everybody else, be that currency or goods. As Bernanke said the other day, the Fed does not have the authority to rescue European banks or bail out countries.
        link to articles.boston.com

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 19, 2011, 4:20 pm

        MRW:

        >> As Bernanke said the other day, the Fed does not have the authority to rescue European banks or bail out countries.

        See ZeroHedge (best source of financial commentary on the web):

        As first reported here, two weeks ago European banks saw the amount of USD-loans from the Fed, via the ECB’s revised swap line, surge to over $50 billion – a total first hit in the aftermath of the Bear Stearns failure prompting us to ask “When is Lehman coming?” However, according to little noted prepared remarks by Anthony Sanders in his Friday testimony to the Congress Oversight Committee, “What the Euro Crisis Means for Taxpayers and the U.S. Economy, Pt. 1″, we may have been optimistic, because the end result will be not when is Lehman coming, but when are the next two Lehmans coming, as according to Sanders, the relaunch of the Fed’s swaps program may “get to the $1 trillion level, or perhaps even higher.” As a reference, FX swap line usage peaked at $583 billion in the Lehman aftermath (see chart). Needless to say, this estimate is rather ironic because as Bloomberg’s Bradely Keoun reports, “Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke yesterday told a closed-door gathering of Republican senators that the Fed won’t provide more aid to European banks beyond the swap lines and the discount window — another Fed program that provides emergency funds to U.S. banks, including U.S. branches of foreign banks.” Well, between a trillion plus in FX swap lines, and a surge in discount window usage which only Zero Hedge has noted so far, there really is nothing else that the Fed can possibly do, as these actions along amount to a QE equivalent liquidity injection, only denominated in US Dollars. Aside of course to shower Europe with dollars from the ChairsatanCopter. Then again, before this is all over, we are certain that paradollardop will be part of the vernacular. ….

        link to zerohedge.com

      • Citizen
        December 19, 2011, 5:29 pm

        Obama kept the same guys that caused our current bailout situation; his financial reforms did very little except hit around the edges, all edges Wall St can easily circumvent. The banks already tried to hit up debit card holders to replace $ lost when Obama curbed the banks’ charging small business for customers using their cards. Obama just does not get it, the people he deems wise financially re net effect on the whole country are the problem. He should have appointed Volker, not Summers, and Bernake and Geither also remain part of the problem. He did not even reinstate the Glass-Steagell law which at least separated commercial, normal banks everybody knows–from casino investment banks. Shingo knows what he talking about and so do those who agree with him here on MW.

    • dahoit
      December 17, 2011, 12:19 pm

      Well, below the headline(about Bachman?)they had Dr.Pauls name in small case,a step up from being unmentionable.(NYTs)

    • dahoit
      December 17, 2011, 1:57 pm

      The man hit grand slams every time at bat!

  22. dahoit
    December 17, 2011, 12:11 pm

    Sorry,GW has the same relevance to todays problems as Saddam Hussein to 9-11.
    An movement pushed by the same ivy league new age wunderkinds as the GWOT.
    Shall we declare a war on weather?
    All the PTB want is for the American sheeple to underwrite their pollution with our tax dollars as they continue to pollute with gov’t assistance.
    Today’s NYTs tells us about the carbon in the melting(alleged)permafrost,as they grease our skids again with corporate alarm.I mean who has a magic wand to stop GW if true?Obomba?Gingrich?These clowns are whores for the polluters,what hope is there, there?
    Would that they have put the same weight behind the resistance to killing people all over the world.
    To not vote for Dr.Paul over an unproven theory(how radical)sounds self defeating.(And if proven,we will adapt,with far fewer deaths than the WOT,as man has always done.)

  23. lysias
    December 19, 2011, 2:37 pm

    New poll in Iowa puts Ron Paul ahead of his closest rival, Romney, by 3 points:

    Paul leads in Iowa

    Newt Gingrich’s campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He’s at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

    • Citizen
      December 19, 2011, 5:33 pm

      It’s really funny how the MSM & talk radio is playing Paul’s lead in Iowa. They keep reminding us he has a devoted following and a good organization in Iowa. Nothing about his ideas on how to make our country better. If his organization and their time in Iowa is the thing to explain Ron Paul’s showing in Iowa, then what about Santorum, who has been everywhere in Iowa for a long time, totally concentrated on it in every way? His showing is negligible.

  24. NorthOfFortyNine
    December 19, 2011, 5:16 pm

    Commentary Mag’s racism vs. Ron Paul’s racism:

    Kind of off topic (but this is the only RP thread running), but Commentary is back harping on the racist overtones of the libertarian movement. I will admit that a few libertarians I know — umm, how do I put this kindly? — do not have the highest regard for African Americans. Back in the 90’s, a Ron Paul newsletter had some awful things to say about same. The Neocons worked this angle to the max and they are now back at it. See here: link to commentarymagazine.com

    That is a fair point, but how difficult would it be to make the case that this is a charred-black pot calling the kettle slightly tinged? The hypocrisy and disengenuous nature of the attack grates. If any MW staffers have some time on their hands it would be great to see a tale of the tape. I thow it out there. -N49.

    • Citizen
      December 19, 2011, 5:37 pm

      Ron Paul is on record saying those bad things about African Americans were put in his newsletter, what 20 yrs ago? And that he does not agree with them, and did not know about it at the time, yet he says he takes responsibility for them and please look at what he says now regarding everything, including the sad plight of fact that so many blacks are in prison, which he says is a problem indicative of the system, not anything inherent in being born black.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 20, 2011, 10:33 am

        I am with you, Citizen. That said, it would not be surprising if it had been Rockwell who did slip these nasties in. I know that crowd. They ain’t all peaches n cream.

        But by comparison, the Neocons are truly a vile & racist bunch and for Commentary to get on its high horseon this issue — and they are — is hypocrisy in the extreme.

        That was my point. -N49.

      • Citizen
        December 20, 2011, 11:32 am

        Here’s 14 items they are planning to use against Ron Paul if he actually keeps winning double digits–#4 is the one we’ve been discussing; make sure you scroll down to read #14 too: link to townhall.com

        Obama will use them in turn if Ron Paul wins, most especially # 4

        Would like to see all of them heavily debated in public.

  25. seafoid
    December 19, 2011, 5:38 pm

    Iraq is going to continue to kill and render insane American soldiers for another 2 generations

    link to nybooks.com

    In the first real setback for the Americans, some Marine units become bogged down in a series of firefights in and around Nasiriyah. Fick’s platoon, waiting some distance away, watches as artillery batteries fire 155mm shells into the city. “Marines who so scrupulously picked up all their litter this morning are now bombing the shit out of the city,” Wright observes. A short time later, Fick’s men, approaching a bridge leading into Nasiriyah, are unsettled to see armed men darting through alleyways, clutching women in front of them for cover. The Marines’ rules of engagement forbid them to fire unless first fired on, but, once the Iraqis do begin shooting, Wright reports, “up and down the line, just about every rifle, machine gun and grenade launcher roars to life.”

    As the Marines fall back, some are clearly exhilarated at this first exposure to battle; others express remorse. “Before we crossed into Iraq, I fucking hated Arabs,” says Antonio Espera, a thirty-year-old sergeant from California. “I don’t know why…. But as soon as we got here, it’s just gone. I just feel sorry for them. I miss my little girl. Dog, I don’t want to kill nobody’s children.” Coming under heavy fire for the first time, Wright is surprised to find himself calm, but he is astonished at the fierceness of the barrage being directed at Nasiriyah. It includes high-explosive rounds that can blast through steel and concrete as well as DPICMs (Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions), cluster shells that burst overhead, dispersing dozens of bomblets designed to shred people.

    Even in the best of circumstances, Wright notes, artillery fire is imprecise, which leads him to wonder why reporters and antiwar groups concerned about collateral damage in war pay so little attention to it:

    The beauty of aircraft, coupled with their high-tech destructive power, captures the imagination. From a news standpoint, jets flying through the sky make for much more dramatic footage than images of cannons parked in the mud, intermittently belching puffs of smoke.

    But the fact is, the Marines rely much more on artillery bombardment than on aircraft dropping precision-guided munitions. During our thirty-six hours outside Nasiriyah they have already lobbed an estimated 2,000 rounds into the city. The impact of this shelling on its 400,000 residents must be devastating.

    Entering the city with the Marines, Wright gets to see just how devastating the impact has been. Smoke curls from collapsed structures, and houses facing the road are pockmarked and cratered. The corpses of Iraqi attackers are scattered on the road leading out of the city. Run over repeatedly by tracked vehicles, “they are flattened, with their entrails squished out,” Wright notes, adding:

    We pass a bus, smashed and burned, with charred human remains sitting upright in some windows. There’s a man in the road with no head and a dead little girl, too, about three or four, lying on her back. She’s wearing a dress and has no legs.

  26. Donna Volatile
    December 20, 2011, 7:20 am

    It comes down to a choice between supporting war or peace.

    We don’t have time for bickering over political points or party politics.

    We are on the precipice of a third world war, one that could very easily go nuclear.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate who is anti-war.

    I come from the radical left perspective and I will be supporting Ron Paul in 2012 and for the first time in my life, I will be registering as a Republican to do so.

    (Obama’s ‘Peace Prize’ needs to be recalled and he along with his predecessors need to stand trial for war crimes and high treason.)

Leave a Reply