Has Ron Paul ever won any of those battles?

I don't really hate Ron Paul, he's a piece of **** but he's never done anything to me.

I do hate Ron Paul's fans. They think they understand economics because of Youtube videos, a ton of them are racist, very few of them really understand how the Constitution works but they all fancy themselves Constitutional experts.

They are tremendously annoying. I am glad Ron Paul is probably too old to keep scamming them out of campaign contributions. I hope gay marriage is legalized everywhere in the United States before he dies so his bigoted hateful ass has to realize just how badly his side lost that battle, just like his side lost every previous battle.

He did. It was just a really bad chance.

If all the other Republican candidates died and it came out that Obama was molesting children, he'd have been in.

It was a poor defense. Paul sometimes makes poor arguments to defend his beliefs as well. Stick to the moral and principled defense.

Right, it all depends on your point of view. There is severe animosity on both sides just like there is on both sides of the religious debate. Both sides see each other as based on faith and cult-like propaganda.

-Ron Paul is a Duke Medical School grad and probably understands economics better than any Congressman in history. The speeches he gave and Federal Reserve monetary hearings from 1999-2007 show a pretty smart guy.

-There are hundreds of interviews and speeches available and no one can find anything that he has said that is remotely racist. I haven't heard of anyone who knows Ron Paul say that he is a racist.

-The empirical evidence is pretty conclusive. Freer markets and less regulation lead to more economic prosperity. See Hong Kong, Singapore, the United States for the first 130 years, Chile, Canada recently, Switzerland. Seems like the science is in. And 15 or so Nobel Prize winners that are free market economists would reject your assertion.

Even in that scenario we'd probably have Johnson or Stein as president elect right now.

Your comments demonstrate a thorough lack of knowledge concerning Ron Paul's politics. He is for liberty which benefits you and all Americans.
He has also stated that marriage should not be dictated by federal or state law. Obviously if you knew this you could not honestly make your post.

None of those countries have (or had) anything close to a "free market". Now while they did graft some free market ideas onto their political landscape and economic landscape it's actually pretty damning to the Ron Paul "free market fixes all idea" when counties who have high regulation and very distinct market and employment landscapes than a free market contractualist market envisioned by Ron Paul can actually thrive better than his vision for the US.

This is just the dreck you hear from him whenever he's called to touch on equal protection violations in the current regime. I guess if you really want to fight it, it would be better characterized as an example of Ron Paul caring more about the "liberty" of the citizens of his imaginary libertopia then about those who are victims of current, real, violations of equal protection of the law.

Given that he's a senile old man, I suspect I know more about Ron Paul's politics than Ron Paul himself at this point.

We've gone over this repeatedly. It's always the same three steps:

1) Deny Paul holds a position because it's awful
2) When, after a few direct quotes and we explain basic civics to you, it becomes clear that Ron Paul DOES hold that position
3) What you originally thought was an awful position actually was the best position for liberty all along!

yeah i was going to reply as well but gj...

i mean wtf is canada doing there , wow...


i must add, all these ludicrous claim that free market and free regulation is good juts make me laugh.

its like poker, their a difference between theory and practice.

even if u know poker theory , doesnt mean u will do good in poker .

example, u know u need to bluff raise the river but u just dont have the guts to do it, or tilting too much or w.e reason,etc.

market is the same, because some cheater,criminals etc are on the market , u need regulation because when they do a mistake or cheat or w.e...the damage is too important to risk it for millions of peoples ( 2008 anyone?).

sacrificing some Equity , profit ,etc.. is good for the long run if its to prevent fraud ,etc that affects millions of workers.


market IS the people and u need to accept the facts that the nature of peoples is to get more by any means necessary , thats why laws and regulation are needed.


all economic theory that dont take into account the risk of human nature is fiction.

LirvA really needs to be unbanned for this thread's final deathgasm.

They are still among the freest in the world, and also some of the top performers in terms of per capita GDP. I guess its a coincidence though.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking?src=home


As to your second point...

Are you referring to wealthy counties, like the ones in proximity to DC? You realize that they have become more wealthy because of the exponential growth of the federal government... and that this comes at the expense of places that could be more successful if their resources weren't forcefully diverted to Washington?

The primary effect of government intervention is to protect and legitimize the cheater criminals, so your post does not compute.

if people are too stupid in some country to elect those that are suppose to represent the common man but instead protect the cheater criminal, than we still get back to the same conclusion...

has long money will have its saying in politics, what u are saying will never go away .


its like all sport like nfl,hockey,etc.. those sports that do well economically is because they have cap on salary and some redistribution of wealth.


imo, if politics would put a cap on its expenses during a campain instaed of accepting money as much as they want, corruption etc would be much less and the focus would be more on the common citizen instead of the few 1% whos got big money !

Also, the US for the first 130 years? But like, not after that?




STOP BELIEVING EVERYTHING SOME CRAZY PERSON ON YOUTUBE SAYS

No, it would just be less obvious. And it will never happen anyway, since the people who would have to vote such a law into place are part of the corruption.

lol "The empirical evidence is pretty conclusive."

graduating with honors in economics, bro. WHAT NOW, HUH?

You sound bitter.

From where? There are probably only like 10 schools in the world where that would be the least bit impressive.

Look at what the Canadian dollar has done over the last 15 years vs the US dollar. Do you think Canada getting their budget under control is the result of more socialism or less socialism?

Here's what "crazy" Harvard PHD Youtube economist Tyler Cowen says about your per capita GDP graph. You also don't take into account currency risks of having a much larger national debt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_93CXTt2K7c

If you don't believe that freer markets and less regulation correlate with higher prosperity you are choosing to be a dimwit.

University of Iowa
#34 on this list though this is grad school econ programs.
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsa...ankings/page+2

glenrice- For ****'s sake I am not watching an 18 minute long Youtube video, which from the title doesn't even appear to be about growth over history but instead current monetary policy.

Are you people ****ing illiterate? Use your words

ludacris- Bitter about what? I never gave Ron Paul any money . I never volunteered my time for any of his scam campaigns. I just pointed and laughed at arrogant dimwits on the internet. It was hilarious. Gosh the Civil War threads and banking threads we had were amazzzzzzzzzzing. Tragically some of the more hilariously outspoken Ron Paul fans got banned, so it'd be sweet if you guys were willing to take up the mantle of furiously defending every single newsletter and Youtube video to the bitter end.

You might want to read this:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/03/...ibertarianism/