|  | | | | | Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” | | | |
| | | | | | | | “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
this is an awful excuse. 'yes, i had my name stamped on three or four different newsletters, they were published for at least a full decade, they reached over 100,000 people at one point, but i never read them, gosh!' | | | |
| | | | | | | | nocal:
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
this is an awful excuse. 'yes, i had my name stamped on three or four different newsletters, they were published for at least a full decade, they reached over 100,000 people at one point, but i never read them, gosh!' WTF is your problem? I have my suspicions, but I'd much rather hear your laughable version of them from you. | | | |
| | | | | | | | WTF is your problem?
what does that even mean | | | |
| | | | | | | | 1) I wish there was a way to pfucking preview a comment before i posted it so i could fix html tags befor i bold the whole thing like an idiot.
2) What that means, nocal, is you seem to have this problem with Ron Paul taking moral responsiblity for items that he disagrees with written in his name, by other people a decacade ago, yet stil disavowing those items because he still disagrees with them. I'd like to know the exact nature of that problem you have. | | | |
| | | | | | | | What that means, nocal, is you seem to have this problem with Ron Paul taking moral responsiblity for items that he disagrees with written in his name, by other people a decacade ago, yet stil disavowing those items because he still disagrees with them. I'd like to know the exact nature of that problem you have.
yes, that is my problem exactly, the half-assed taking responsibility part :eyeroll:
if you believe that -- as a member of elected office with a public phone number, as a man who surely left the office for public events, as a man who interacted with his constituents, as a person who published multiple newsletters that reached over 100,000 people, as a man who had a private sector job, as a man with family members -- he never received any feedback from any person, he never got a single phone call from a supporter or detractor re: the newsletters, he never once read (in over ten years) one of the many issues, he didn't personally know the authors or their work, he never had it brought up while in a political race with an opponent (oh wait HE DID)
if you believe all of that is true
then you are the one who has the problem. | | | |
| | | | | | | | Man you want the ronpaulcok2008 so bad | | | |
| | | | | | | Is it too late to start a Ron Paul Cult of Personality?
...or is it too early? Is now the right time, guys? | | | |
| | | | | | | | nocal:
yes, that is my problem exactly, the half-assed taking responsibility part :eyeroll:
if you believe that -- as a member of elected office with a public phone number, as a man who surely left the office for public events, as a man who interacted with his constituents, as a person who published multiple newsletters that reached over 100,000 people, as a man who had a private sector job, as a man with family members -- he never received any feedback from any person, he never got a single phone call from a supporter or detractor re: the newsletters, he never once read (in over ten years) one of the many issues, he didn't personally know the authors or their work, he never had it brought up while in a political race with an opponent (oh wait HE DID)
if you believe all of that is true
then you are the one who has the problem.
Let me get this straight. Your problem now is that you do NOT think Ron Paul was aware of the content of those news letters written as if endorsed by him over a decade ago? That he was not disavowing those statements in the past? That he is disavowing those statements just now? Is that it? Are you asserting that he never received any feedback from any person, he never got a single phone call from a supporter or detractor re: the newsletters, he never once read (in over ten years) one of the many issues, he didn't personally know the authors or their work, he never had it brought up while in a political race with an opponent ?
Because if you believe that nocal, I will point out to you that in his Statement on the New Repuplic Article Ron Paul said, '“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.'
How about that nocal? You and your bullshit ilk have been pulling this same old stunt for over a decade. Why don't you give it a rest?
| | | |
| | | | | | | | The timing of this article is a little odd. The day of the priamary? C'mon. | | | |
| | | | | | | | How about that nocal? You and your bullshit ilk have been pulling this same old stunt for over a decade. Why don't you give it a rest?
this sounds like a conspiracy theory if i ever heard one. 'the same old stunt,' you say? you mean, claiming that an unpopular candidate is a racist bigot homophobe based on a decade's worth of documentation? yeah man i am just pulling these loopy accusations out of thin air.
Because if you believe that nocal, I will point out to you that in his Statement on the New Repuplic Article Ron Paul said, '“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.'
oh ok it's old news, nothing to see here.
he was not a child, this was not a one time event. this was more than 10 years of publications with his name on them. his views are downright scary, politically and personally.
i understand the cognitive dissonance you're feeling, but someone as smart as you ought to recognize that ron paul is kind of a piece of shit.
The timing of this article is a little odd.
if i were authoring a piece like that, i would time it like that too, because it makes business sense
there sure are a lot of conspiracy theories surrounding dr paul... | | | |
| | | | | | | wow nocal I say brovo you fucking go you, you fucking tore him a new one. look LOki I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but after reading that I have to wonder a little bit, fuck I even worked a little bit on the campaign in Iowa as a volunteer for a couple of days, but dude fuck if you can't pull your eye away from his brown eye and stop tonguing his taint long enough to at least question his motives. Even a little bit? Then something IS definitely wrong with you. | | | |
| | | | | | | | nocal:this sounds like a conspiracy theory if i ever heard one. 'the same old stunt,' you say? you mean, claiming that an unpopular candidate is a racist bigot homophobe based on a decade's worth of documentation? yeah man i am just pulling these loopy accusations out of thin air.
Yes. You are pulling these loopy accusation out of thin air. Ron Paul made none of those racist statemets in the New Repupublic Article. There is not a decades worth of documentation to support your accusation, just a decades worth of accusations, and their rebuttals--it's tired.
Let's take a look at Ron Paul's actual position on racism, and I think we'll find your real problem with the man: 'Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.' I'll just bet your problem is that Ron Paul challenges the patently bullshit collectivist group-think notions of diversity, and that's the hook you're desperately hoping to hang your accusations of racism on.
Regulator:wow nocal I say brovo you fucking go you, you fucking tore him a new one. look LOki I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but after reading that I have to wonder a little bit, fuck I even worked a little bit on the campaign in Iowa as a volunteer for a couple of days, but dude fuck if you can't pull your eye away from his brown eye and stop tonguing his taint long enough to at least question his motives. Even a little bit? Then something IS definitely wrong with you.
Wow Regulator, let me say bravo to you for pure menetal retardation. A an alleged Ron Paul supporter, I'm surprised at how blissfully unaware you were that he has spent a decade apologizing for what others wrote in a newsletter that had his name on it ten years ago. I have to wonder at the sensibilites of someone who cannot parse the difference between the actual words of people, written by those actual people, and the words of other people, and the motives of those other people--even a little bit. Something IS definitely wrong with you.
| | | |
| | | | | | | | Hey. How about that preview the comment feature? | | | |
| | | | | | | | Hey. Keep an eye out -- you're going to get it today! | | | |
| | | | | | | | The true antidote to racism is liberty.
The true antidote to a mouse infestation is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards tbe murdering of individual vermin such as mice or also rats, rather than allowing a collective welfare system to neglect them or, even worse, reward the rodents for eroding our precious individual freedoms.
The true antidote to uncomfortable gas build-up is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards frequent out-gassing -- not bloating, diarrhea, or, even worse, floating up into outer space as a giant human balloon, whisked aloft by the collective output of the teeming hordes of fart bacteria in your gut.
The true antidote to messing up your HTML tags is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards frequent fucking-paying-attention as you type -- not wandering off mid-sentence, scratching your hams, or lapsing into Bluto impersonations whilst commenting on LinkSwarm. Frequent fucking-paying-attention is the true path to preserving our individual freedoms granted by our constitution, rather than relying on a handout from the state in the form of a preview function in the comment box. | | | |
| | | | | | | | 'Frequent fucking-paying-attention is the true path to preserving our individual freedoms granted by our constitution, rather than relying on a handout from the state in the form of a preview function in the comment box.
racist. | | | |
| | | | | | | | could a reasonable person assume it was either written by him, approved by him, or at least known about by him? i believe that a reasonable person could assume that. you do not. one of us is really stretching the limits of plausibility.
and you know that if this story was about hillary clinton, or barack obama, or romeny, or any politician whose dick you don't want to suckle, you'd agree that that candidate has some insane beliefs. | | | |
| | | | | | | | Woah woah woah, no one told me anything about blowjobs. Just what the fuck is this man's candidacy all about? COMFORT LEVEL PLUMMETTING! | | | |
| | | | | | | | nocal:
could a reasonable person assume it was either written by him, approved by him, or at least known about by him? i believe that a reasonable person could assume that. you do not. one of us is really stretching the limits of plausibility.
Upon several occasions it was pointed out to you that Ron Paul was made aware that someone published some racist crap in a newsletter that that had his name on it. If you were a reasonable person, nocal, you would have aknowledged that fact. It was also pointed out to you that upon being made aware of it, Ron Paul took moral responsibility for the statements made under his name, while denouncing them for the crap they were. If you were a reasonable person nocal, you would understand that even your written statements can not demenstrate Ron Paul to be a racist, even if those statements were made on Ron Paul's personal letterhead.
nocal:
and you know that if this story was about hillary clinton, or barack obama, or romeny, or any politician whose dick you don't want to suckle, you'd agree that that candidate has some insane beliefs.
If the beleifs were those of the candidate, and not someone-else...certainly. | | | |
| | | | | | | | I know Ron Paul is a racist, he has this on his front lawn.
 | | | |
| | | | | | | | I’m curious about a couple things.
Did the newsletters contain a disclaimer stating that the views expressed within don’t necessarily reflect the views of the publisher or Ron Paul himself?
What’s the difference between claiming moral responsibility and just responsibility?
| | | |
| | | | | | | | If you were a reasonable person, nocal, you would have aknowledged that fact. It was also pointed out to you that upon being made aware of it, Ron Paul took moral responsibility for the statements made under his name, while denouncing them for the crap they were.
what the fuck. the newsletters were published over the course of TWO DECADES. if it happened once, i would understand. twice even. it's a longstanding pattern. and his apology was a political one (i.e. terrible and one that tries to duck any actual responsibility for anything). note he hasn't revealed any author's names. no author has stepped forward. is he protecting some weird racist? does he not know who was writing for a product, written in first person with his name on it, for over two decades? don't you think that it's a fuck up whether he knew about it or not? a huge fuck up perhaps? oh wait he apologized so i guess he didn't mean any of it, so i forgive him
If you were a reasonable person nocal, you would understand that even your written statements can not demenstrate Ron Paul to be a racist, even if those statements were made on Ron Paul's personal letterhead.
if you were a reasonable person you would not keep arguing as though this happened one time and he had no fucking idea about it.
beyond the fact that the gold standard would never work because it relies on trade deficits, beyond the fact that ron paul has never passed a bill and yet has authored nearly 350, beyond the fact that he has never co-authored a bill and so clearly cannot work with another rational human being, beyond the fact that he has a pretty negative opinion of the rights of gay people (i base this on his legislative record), beyond the fact that he wants states to determine their relationship with religion and wants the federal government out of it (in texas, there is a law that anyone elected to office must believe in god that hasn't yet been enforced because the fed would obviously strike it down, so i wonder where that is leading...), beyond the fact that no one is ever 'revolutionary' in government because there are too many people with too much power who have vested interests in staying there,
BEYOND ALL THAT
i think that his personal beliefs are pretty unforgivable.
now, either you believe that:
1) he wrote those things
2) he approved of them
3) he allowed someone to use his name for two decades and never once looked at the product (or heard about it)
IN ANY CASE, even if #3 is true, i believe it is an incredible lapse of judgment that is not exactly something i desire in a presidential candidate.
maybe you believe #3, and maybe you believe that it is not a big deal. whatever. you can believe that, but i think you believe the least likely of the three scenarios, and i think you only think that way because you like him otherwise.
shine on with your cerebral paulsie! | | | |
| | | | | | | Hmmmm, interesting tit-tat. Seems quite low on supportable facts from the ToneLoke and Local. Perhaps if you two could site some references, supportable evidence to the claim of infraction period: once, ten years back or over the course of two decades. The body swarm would be more able to digest the potential arguments. Right now you seem like a bunch of lit-up crack whores fighting over who gets to blow the john. And although you both have pretty mouths, that doesn't really help in getting to the bottom of things.
Please pass your bluebooks to the front when complete.
PS.. Vas.... what are you on? I loved your discourse on liberty. Randomly generated, scripted, or novel?
| | | |
| | | | | | | | Perhaps if you two could site some references
perhaps you ought to check the link upon which we are commenting. that is where i get my accusations, anyway. loki just believes the honest words of a career politician :) | | | |
| | | | | | | | His history as a legislator is highly disconcerting. A legislator that can't get anything passed has no future as a president. How does someone push through executive policies when they can't get create policies in the legislature? He's a career house rep-he will stay that way. He's the anti-moderate and he's pushing out his positions as though he's a third party in Germany-where alienating lots of people wouldn't screw his political chances. Well, here they will and they have. | | | |
| | | | | | | | Bigdinwaunakee: PS.. Vas.... what are you on? I loved your discourse on liberty. Randomly generated, scripted, or novel?
Wordgames. I detected a rewardingly quasi-absurd passage in LOki's paste, copied it, pasted it anew, and plugged in three different variables I thought might highlight the absurdity of 'Liberty' being the #1 solution to all woes: vermin infestations, farts (you know you've been there yo), and lack of link comment preview, just to be a dick to LOki, who I love, and wish would shut the faggot fuck up about the goddamn link faggot preview thing for the 9017th faggot time. | | | |
| | | | | | | I wonder how dangerous his personal beliefs could be versus the other inbred macaques we have to choose from for our civics experiment:
1_ Hillary
2_ Mac KAIN
3_ The Mormonator™
4_ Obama yo' mama
5_ Hickory Huck
6_ Adolf Guilianni
The thing is that every one of them to a fault will maintain the ever so effective and beloved STATUS QUO [Latin for the way things currently are].
I don't care if he's a racist, child molester, anti-abortionist, anti-abolitionist, creationist, temperance movement, gold standard, kook--he's definite NOT for the following:
against the continued destruction of Civil Rights. [Patriot acts 1-sideways 8]
increased socialistic intrusion into our daily lives. He's against the fucking gubment.
Think about this people--we could elect the guy to the Home Owner's Association who dissolves the Home Owner's Association.
Back to a point:
'i think that his personal beliefs are pretty unforgivable.'
Not that unforgivable:
1_ Hillary : A tool. Worst parts of Clinton era part II.
2_ Mac KAIN: A tool, warmonger devil-chipmunk.
3_ The Mormonator™: A total creep and a tool. Big money wins again!
4_ Obama yo' mama: Nice guy, totally clueless.
5_ Hickory Huck: Creepy preacher man Bush episode 3.
6_ Adolf Guilianni: Fucking fascist scum.
7_ Ron Paul: Kooky libertarian running under Republican smokescreen. | | | |
| | | | | | | | LOki:
If you were a reasonable person, nocal, you would have aknowledged that fact. It was also pointed out to you that upon being made aware of it, Ron Paul took moral responsibility for the statements made under his name, while denouncing them for the crap they were.
nocal:
what the fuck. the newsletters were published over the course of TWO DECADES. if it happened once, i would understand. twice even. it's a longstanding pattern. and his apology was a political one (i.e. terrible and one that tries to duck any actual responsibility for anything). note he hasn't revealed any author's names. no author has stepped forward. is he protecting some weird racist? does he not know who was writing for a product, written in first person with his name on it, for over two decades? don't you think that it's a fuck up whether he knew about it or not? a huge fuck up perhaps? oh wait he apologized so i guess he didn't mean any of it, so i forgive him
First, these were isolated quotes taken from hudreds of newsletters, it's NOt the longstanding pattern you're characterizing here. Secondly, refusing to 'out'the actual author is not a crime here, particularly since Ron Paul is taking moral responsibility for what was written.
LOki:
If you were a reasonable person nocal, you would understand that even your written statements can not demenstrate Ron Paul to be a racist, even if those statements were made on Ron Paul's personal letterhead.
nocal:
if you were a reasonable person you would not keep arguing as though this happened one time and he had no fucking idea about it.
I am not arguing that it happened one time. I am not arguing that he had no idea about it. I'm arguing that he had no hand in it, but has taken responsibility for the words written in his name anyway.
nocal:
beyond the fact that the gold standard would never work because it relies on trade deficits,
Economics Lessons From Morons for Authoritarians, Ch. 1, Pg. 1
nocal:
beyond the fact that ron paul has never passed a bill and yet has authored nearly 350, beyond the fact that he has never co-authored a bill and so clearly cannot work with another rational human being,
Well, 1 vote can't pass a Bill nocal, and Bills that undermine the authority of authoritarians are not going to be popular among authoritarians--that does not make authoritarians rational human beings.
nocal:
beyond the fact that he has a pretty negative opinion of the rights of gay people (i base this on his legislative record),
You're wrong, and your accusation is baseless. Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that being gay grants a person a special status with particular rights beyond those of the rest of humanity--you know, 'gay rights.'
nocal:
beyond the fact that he wants states to determine their relationship with religion and wants the federal government out of it (in texas, there is a law that anyone elected to office must believe in god that hasn't yet been enforced because the fed would obviously strike it down, so i wonder where that is leading...),
I think you purposely mischaracterize this, and I will stipulate for you that Ron Paul wants to live in a state that has a state established religion--but I will do so only if you admit that you're real problem is individual self-determination, and that you recognize the plain fact you're still free to not live in Texas, that each State still has it's own Consitiution and can assert its secular nature constitutionally, and through fair and proper excercise of the rights retained by the States, and the People respectively, there is nothing at all wrong with keeping the Federal Government out of this.
nocal:
beyond the fact that no one is ever 'revolutionary' in government because there are too many people with too much power who have vested interests in staying there,
Being such an expert on Ron Paul's legislation, you still can't figure out why all those people with 'too much power' don't work with him? Oh yeah, they're rational.
nocal:
BEYOND ALL THAT
i think that his personal beliefs are pretty AWESOME!!!!.
now, I believe that:
1) he NEVER wrote those things
2) he NEVER approved of them
3) he allowed someone to use his name for two decades and once discovering the content of product (or heard about it), disavowed the nature of that content while taking moral resposibility for it being written in his name.
IN ANY CASE, SINCE #1 - #3 is true, i believe it is an incredible DISPLAY of judgment AND MORAL COURAGE that is exactly something i desire in a presidential candidate.
Despite seeing your name attached to the above sentiment, I'm inclined to suspect some trickery, but your impeccable arguments have changed my mind; nice to see you come around proper. I'm glad that's all settled. | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | punxutawneyphil
your moral relativism after 30 posts in a thread is getting annoying. is it that you have no sack, or is it that you have no true convictions?
First, these were isolated quotes taken from hudreds of newsletters, it's NOt the longstanding pattern you're characterizing here.
did you read the article? there were a lot of quotes. like i said, this wasn't some one-time thing, or even a handful, in which case i might think he missed it.
Secondly, refusing to 'out'the actual author is not a crime here, particularly since Ron Paul is taking moral responsibility for what was written.
on the one hand, he is defending a racist bigot homophobe for...what reason? i mean, taking 'moral responsibility for what was written' is not what he actually said. he said 'For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” so he takes moral responsibility for not paying attention. which is a game of semantics.
Economics Lessons From Morons for Authoritarians, Ch. 1, Pg. 1
oh really, what does the gold standard rely on if not trade? beyond that: The stability caused by the gold standard is also the biggest drawback in having one. Exchange rates are not allowed to respond to changing circumstances in countries. A gold standard severely limits the stabilization policies the Federal Reserve can use. Because of these factors, countries with gold standards tend to have severe economic shocks.
additionally, gold can go up or down in value, meaning it fluctuates just like paper money. it is a fixed resource with practical real world uses, and some sources say that all the gold mined up to this point would fit in a cube measuring 18x18x18 meters. an influx of gold destroyed the economy in spain in the 16th century
Well, 1 vote can't pass a Bill nocal, and Bills that undermine the authority of authoritarians are not going to be popular among authoritarians--that does not make authoritarians rational human beings.
he can't get anything passed now with his limited authority because he won't cooperate, he won't get anything done as president with his limited authority because he won't cooperate. he will be dealing with the same people who still have vested interests in keeping their power.
You're wrong, and your accusation is baseless.
in a sense, you're right. he votes down all this stuff and explains it away because it gives federal funding, or because it should be up to the states. but he believes that two gay people shouldn't necessarily be allowed to buttfuck in their own bedroom (states can decide this), he believes that two people shouldn't be able to adopt if they aren't married, and yet he believes that gay marriage is left up to the states and is not transferable. so what if gays get married and adopt in massachusetts and move to texas? they take their kids away? and then they buttfuck in the bedroom and their social worker asks if they're sexually active and they say yes? i would like those two gay buttfuckers to have the same rights as me and some broad i knock up.
there is nothing at all wrong with keeping the Federal Government out of this.
except that it establishes a religious test for assuming political office.
In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would remove federal court jurisdiction over abortion cases arising from state laws and effectively negate Roe v. Wade as binding legal precedent. Also, for the purposes of statutory construction over the jurisdictional limitation imposed, the bill declares that 'human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.'[77][78] Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. Also in 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols, texts, and images. The Act would make federal court decisions on those subjects nonbinding as precedent in state courts,[79] and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.
ok first 'sanctity of life act' lols. so he wants the SCOTUS out of his state entirely as it relates to religion entirely, and there is a law on the books in texas that requires one believe in god to hold office. i don't know, sounds likely to me.
i do see a problem with this, given his christian agenda. 'if he were muslim,' you say, but no, i don't give a fuck. maybe if he was an admitted atheist, but he has a vested interest in one type of religion becoming dominant in his state. but you can move! yeah i can move, but why the fuck should i have to? just because i'm a 'minority' in my chosen state, now i can't run for office? what if 49 states declared christianity as their official religion? then i have to go live in the only state left? that doesn't make any sense. seems like mob rule to me.
Being such an expert on Ron Paul's legislation, you still can't figure out why all those people with 'too much power' don't work with him?
i don't claim to be an expert on his legislation, because it is largely superfluous and mildly crazy, but you miss my point. my point is precisely that he can't get anyone to work with him. he will either compromise or get nothing meaningful done. THAT IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM WITH POLITICS, AND PARTICULARLY PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS like your doc. so all his 'revolution' bullshit is meaningless. there would be no gold standard, no abolishing the IRS, no getting rid of the insanely powerful lobbies. what would actually get passed though is probably shit like the sanctity of life act, so there's always that.
Despite seeing your name attached to the above sentiment, I'm inclined to suspect some trickery, but your impeccable arguments have changed my mind; nice to see you come around proper. I'm glad that's all settled.
you and uart keep doing this stupid bait and switch argument. you have dazzled me with your reason.
except you didn't keep doing it for 20 years, and i didn't sit here and fail to stop you (with a lawsuit? with a phone call? with a polite request?) from misrepresenting my true 'i love everyone' beliefs. LIKE I SAID if this was a one time thing, or a handful of times, i could understand that, BUT IT'S NOT, so to make excuses for him you are really reaching.
| | | |
| | | | | | | | nocal:
did you read the article? there were a lot of quotes. like i said, this wasn't some one-time thing, or even a handful, in which case i might think he missed it.
Did You read the article? Your 'Decades' actually span about 3 years of these newsletters, back in the early 1990s, and your 'a lot of quotes' were taken from about 8 of those letters.
nocal:
on the one hand, he is defending a racist bigot homophobe for...what reason?
He did not defend the writer. You are making this shit up, just as you are making up you rationale for accusing Ron Paul of being a racist.
nocal:
i mean, taking 'moral responsibility for what was written' is not what he actually said. he said 'For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” so he takes moral responsibility for not paying attention. which is a game of semantics.
Fine. I misspoke. He still says, 'The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.' What part of that do fail to grasp while you continue to accuse him of being a racist?
nocal:
oh really, what does the gold standard rely on if not trade?
You said it relies on trade deficits. Try to keep up with your half of the conversation.
nocal:
beyond that: The stability caused by the gold standard is also the biggest drawback in having one. Exchange rates are not allowed to respond to changing circumstances in countries. A gold standard severely limits the stabilization policies the Federal Reserve can use. Because of these factors, countries with gold standards tend to have severe economic shocks.
Untrue. Stupid people cannot be protected from their stupid decisions by some arbitrary administrative fiat, but there's still plenty of sensible rate mobility within the stabiltiy of a gold standard. What's the point of protecting the stupids?
nocal:
additionally, gold can go up or down in value, meaning it fluctuates just like paper money. it is a fixed resource with practical real world uses, and some sources say that all the gold mined up to this point would fit in a cube measuring 18x18x18 meters. an influx of gold destroyed the economy in spain in the 16th century
Stolen gold, to be precise; yes. Consider that for awhile, as you lecture me on the merits of fiat money.
nocal:
in a sense, you're right. he votes down all this stuff and explains it away because it gives federal funding, or because it should be up to the states.
Thanks, at least, for this much.
nocal:
but he believes that two gay people shouldn't necessarily be allowed to buttfuck in their own bedroom (states can decide this),...
Oh, he belives this? Or he believes the Fed shouldn't be deciding this?
nocal:
...he believes that two people shouldn't be able to adopt if they aren't married, and yet he believes that gay marriage is left up to the states and is not transferable.
You would prefer ambiguos custody then, and you think the Federal government should have jursidiction over marriage. I prefer much less ambiguity when it come to the custody of a child, and I prefer les federal jurisdiction over social matters. You're the kind of authoritarian I dislike the most.
LOki:
There is nothing at all wrong with keeping the Federal Government out of this.
nocal:
except that it establishes a religious test for assuming political office.
No it doesn't.
nocal:
In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would remove federal court jurisdiction over abortion cases arising from state laws and effectively negate Roe v. Wade as binding legal precedent. Also, for the purposes of statutory construction over the jurisdictional limitation imposed, the bill declares that 'human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.'[77][78] Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. Also in 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols, texts, and images. The Act would make federal court decisions on those subjects nonbinding as precedent in state courts,[79] and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.
ok first 'sanctity of life act' lols. so he wants the SCOTUS out of his state entirely as it relates to religion entirely, and there is a law on the books in texas that requires one believe in god to hold office. i don't know, sounds likely to me.
Firstly, religion is not mentioned in this Bill. Not even once.
Secondly, if you're one that advocates that abortion legislation is a State's Rights issue and not a Federal Powers issue, then maybe this limitation of Federal jurisdiction makes sense coming from the premise that killing a human being should never be considered a human right.
nocal:
i do see a problem with this, given his christian agenda.
You know what nocal? I'll just bet that all those fundamentalist evangelical Huckabee voters would love to see Ron Paul's big scary Christian agenda--would you mind posting the link? I'd like to see it too, because i don't think it exists, rather i think it's alot of bullshit you're making up so you can feel scared of besides the idea of having to be responsible for yourself.
nocal:The new and improved nocal:
BEYOND ALL THAT
i think that his personal beliefs are pretty AWESOME!!!!.
now, I believe that:
1) he NEVER wrote those things
2) he NEVER approved of them
3) he allowed someone to use his name for two decades and once discovering the content of product (or heard about it), disavowed the nature of that content while taking moral resposibility for it being written in his name.
IN ANY CASE, SINCE #1 - #3 is true, i believe it is an incredible DISPLAY of judgment AND MORAL COURAGE that is exactly something i desire in a presidential candidate.
LOki;Despite seeing your name attached to the above sentiment, I'm inclined to suspect some trickery, but your impeccable arguments have changed my mind; nice to see you come around proper. I'm glad that's all settled.
you and uart keep doing this stupid bait and switch argument. you have dazzled me with your reason.
except you didn't keep doing it for 20 years, and i didn't sit here and fail to stop you (with a lawsuit? with a phone call? with a polite request?) from misrepresenting my true 'i love everyone' beliefs. LIKE I SAID if this was a one time thing, or a handful of times, i could understand that, BUT IT'S NOT, so to make excuses for him you are really reaching.
Whatever. Your impeccable argument asserts that there is no counter argument against having your name attached to a statement; all attemts to disavow are nothing but 'lame excuses.' Since this is your very own paradigm, I suppose it would be bad form for me to point out to you that all this '...you didn't keep doing it for 20 years...' and '...i didn't sit here and fail to stop you...' are just lame excuses. We all 'know' you are a sincere Ron Paul fan-boy. I am so glad you've finally come around. | | | |
| | | | | | | | Did You read the article? Your 'Decades' actually span about 3 years of these newsletters, back in the early 1990s, and your 'a lot of quotes' were taken from about 8 of those letters.
the quotes in the article range from 1978 to 1996. that's less than two decades, so i can retract that statement. what i meant was that something was published for decades and yet he never caught on. perhaps he never caught on because the overt racism and bigotry was for 18 short years.
He did not defend the writer. You are making this shit up, just as you are making up you rationale for accusing Ron Paul of being a racist.
in not naming him, isn't he shielding him? i realize that to name him is to throw him to the wolves, but let me tell you, if someone was seriously misrepresenting me like that, i wouldn't really give a shit if people knew that he was a racist asshole.
What part of that do fail to grasp while you continue to accuse him of being a racist?
do you believe what any politician says, or just your favorite?
You said it relies on trade deficits. Try to keep up with your half of the conversation.
i realize i misspoke there. i should have said it is dependent on trade, and can become a serious problem when facing trade deficits.
Stupid people cannot be protected from their stupid decisions by some arbitrary administrative fiat
i wasn't aware that rate fluctuations only affected stupid people. and it's strange to think, with all the time and thought and talent that goes into those decisions, that you would call them 'arbitrary.' isn't a standard based on gold (and not silver, and not uranium, and not platinum) arbitrary?
Stolen gold, to be precise; yes. Consider that for awhile, as you lecture me on the merits of fiat money.
point being, it caused a sharp decline in the value of gold. take diamonds for instance: extremely plentiful, yet costly because they are controlled, mostly, by one company. if an individual found a large diamond mine on his or her property, and managed to keep debeers out of it, the price of diamonds could fall precipitously.
Oh, he belives this? Or he believes the Fed shouldn't be deciding this?
yes, he voted against striking down anti-sodomy laws at the federal level, saying that states should decide this for themselves. WHICH IS WHAT I SAID.
You would prefer ambiguos custody then
that's the opposite of what i'm saying.
No it doesn't.
a law on the books in texas says that we must believe in a creator to be in public office, ron paul wants the federal government to leave that law alone and allow whatever religious symbols to be involved in government buildings, but that doesn't establish a religious test?
Firstly, religion is not mentioned in this Bill. Not even once.
...government display of religious symbols, texts, and images.
ok whatever you say.
Ron Paul's big scary Christian agenda--would you mind posting the link? I'd like to see it too, because i don't think it exists, rather i think it's alot of bullshit you're making up so you can feel scared of besides the idea of having to be responsible for yourself.
well there's an act called the 'sanctity of life act,' there's an act that wants to keep SCOTUS out of rulings on abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols, texts, and images. and then ron paul says that we get our rights from our 'creator' (no i did not make that up). i'm not saying that huckabee is less religious or something; far from it. as far as legislating religion i would much rather have ron paul than mike huckabee.
Whatever. Your impeccable argument asserts that there is no counter argument against having your name attached to a statement
whatever. your impeccable argument asserts that there is no counter argument against having your name attached to multiple statements over the course of 18 years. | | | |
| | | | | | | | nocal:
the quotes in the article range from 1978 to 1996. that's less than two decades, so i can retract that statement. what i meant was that something was published for decades and yet he never caught on. perhaps he never caught on because the overt racism and bigotry was for 18 short years.
All the newsletters ever published spanned 18 years, the 'racist' letters quoted only spanned about 3. Take a look.
nocal:
in not naming him, isn't he shielding him? i realize that to name him is to throw him to the wolves, but let me tell you, if someone was seriously misrepresenting me like that, i wouldn't really give a shit if people knew that he was a racist asshole.
It's not the same as defending him. And although wolves need to eat, sometimes it's better to let the fuckers starve, even if it mean an asshole gets to breathe a little longer.
LOki:What part of that do fail to grasp while you continue to accuse him of being a racist?
nocal:
do you believe what any politician says, or just your favorite?
His actions are not those of a racist either, so answer the question: What part of ''The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.' do you fail to grasp while you continue to accuse Ron Paul of being a racist?
Stupid people cannot be protected from their stupid decisions by some arbitrary administrative fiat
nocal:
i wasn't aware that rate fluctuations only affected stupid people....
The relatively non-volitile rate fluctuations associated with a gold standard only ruin stupid people.
nocal:
...and it's strange to think, with all the time and thought and talent that goes into those decisions, that you would call them 'arbitrary.'
They are arbitrary in the sense that those who benefit from the economics of fiat currency are not decided by economics, but rather by politics.
nocal:
isn't a standard based on gold (and not silver, and not uranium, and not platinum) arbitrary?
Nope.
LOki:
Stolen gold, to be precise; yes. Consider that for awhile, as you lecture me on the merits of fiat money.
nocal:
point being, it caused a sharp decline in the value of gold.
Actual point being, you're afraid to consider the relationship between the stolen and Spain's economy, and the stolen wealth created by inflationary monetary policies made possible by fiat money.
nocal:
take diamonds for instance: extremely plentiful, yet costly because they are controlled, mostly, by one company. if an individual found a large diamond mine on his or her property, and managed to keep debeers out of it, the price of diamonds could fall precipitously.
First, only if you found that mine, and that's because you'd be just the idiot that would dump them on the market. Yes?
Secondly, great big IF.
Thirdly, not extremely plentiful--certainly not if you're discussing gem quality.
nocal:
yes, he voted against striking down anti-sodomy laws at the federal level, saying that states should decide this for themselves. WHICH IS WHAT I SAID.
This is self contradicting. You are clearly confused.
nocal:
a law on the books in texas says that we must believe in a creator to be in public office, ron paul wants the federal government to leave that law alone and allow whatever religious symbols to be involved in government buildings, but that doesn't establish a religious test?
What goes on in Texas can stay in Texas. If Texans want to establish a religion in Texas, the U.S. Constitution obligates the Federal governemnt to butt out. No religious test applies to Federal office.
Just wondering...you have heard of the separation of Federal and State powers, right? You do relaize that there is, in fact, a distinct difference between the jurisdictions of Federal and State Governments?
LOki:
Firstly, religion is not mentioned in this Bill. Not even once.
nocal:
...government display of religious symbols, texts, and images.
ok whatever you say.
Do you actually think you can just make up some text and post it in here as if it came from The Sanctity of Life Act? And then tack on 'ok whatever you say.' as if I had no idea what I'm talking about? As if I wasn't connected to the internet? As if I couldn't link right to the fucking legislation?
LOki:You know what nocal? I'll just bet that all those fundamentalist evangelical Huckabee voters would love to see Ron Paul's big scary Christian agenda--would you mind posting the link? I'd like to see it too, because i don't think it exists, rather i think it's alot of bullshit you're making up so you can feel scared of besides the idea of having to be responsible for yourself.
nocal:
well there's an act called the 'sanctity of life act,' there's an act that wants to keep SCOTUS out of rulings on abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols, texts, and images.
Well let us just take a look at this Sanctity of Life Act you have such a boner for. Look. Not one mention of marriage, sexual practice, religious displays, symbols, texts or images. You made all that shit up. Just like your litte Ron Paul the racist fantasy.
This limitation of Federal jurisdiction makes sense coming from the premise that killing a human being should never be considered a human right.
nocal:
..and then ron paul says that we get our rights from our 'creator' (no i did not make that up).
He didn't either--you might want to read The Declaration of Independence.
nocal:
whatever. your impeccable argument asserts that there is no counter argument against having your name attached to multiple statements over the course of 18 years.
My actual argument is that there IS a counter argument against having your name attached to multiple statements over the course of 18 years. Yours though, is much easier to implement.nocal:BEYOND ALL THAT
i think that [Ron Paul's] personal beliefs are pretty AWESOME!!!!
You're a real Ron Paul hero! Yay! | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | All the newsletters ever published spanned 18 years, the 'racist' letters quoted only spanned about 3. Take a look.
look at the article. here are the years from which the quotes come:
1978
1983
1987
1988
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
some of the years listed have multiple quotes.
It's not the same as defending him. And although wolves need to eat, sometimes it's better to let the fuckers starve, even if it mean an asshole gets to breathe a little longer.
not telling the truth is different than lying, but morally, it's not very far removed.
do you fail to grasp while you continue to accuse Ron Paul of being a racist?
oh, i just don't believe his excuses and i don't like his half-assed apology shtick. why do you automatically believe him? perhaps his actions in government have been, and forever will be, colorblind. does this mean that in his personal life he is not racist? and that may not bother you, because personal lives can be separate from working lives, but it bothers me. doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the point of view that they can be separate lives, i just personally don't like it.
The relatively non-volitile rate fluctuations associated with a gold standard only ruin stupid people.
the real estate market is about as stable an investment as one can make, and it has ruined countless people. and again, the gold standard can have volatile fluctuations, and in the past it has had such fluctuations.
Nope
yes it is. you're being silly now. why don't we have a silver standard? there's more of it, and it's world renowned as being valuable. people harp on gold for no good reason, not realizing it's as arbitrary as any commodity.
Actual point being, you're afraid to consider the relationship between the stolen and Spain's economy, and the stolen wealth created by inflationary monetary policies made possible by fiat money.
yeah it scares me so bad. you're not in the ballpark of my point. an influx of gold drove up prices for goods and services, which led to buying foreign products, which led to a dwindling supply of gold, which led to economic collapse. if they had found an enormous mine rather than stealing it, it would have been a similar situation.
First, only if you found that mine, and that's because you'd be just the idiot that would dump them on the market. Yes?
Secondly, great big IF.
Thirdly, not extremely plentiful--certainly not if you're discussing gem quality.
first, you'd be an idiot not to undercut debeers with your huge supply. you could make an incredible fortune by selling at a lower price.
secondly, it has happened before. debeers pretty forcefully buys people out.
thirdly, diamonds are extremely plentiful. debeers has a cartel that holds most of their surplus in order to squeeze the market. they also crack, chip, discolor. i have swarmed a long article about this that goes into heavy detail, and my assertions about diamonds are true.
This is self contradicting. You are clearly confused.
i am not. i have said the same thing twice and i will say it again: ron paul wants the states to be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want anti-sodomy laws. he wants the states to decide who can buttfuck in their own houses. how is this unclear?
What goes on in Texas can stay in Texas. If Texans want to establish a religion in Texas, the U.S. Constitution obligates the Federal governemnt to butt out. No religious test applies to Federal office.
Just wondering...you have heard of the separation of Federal and State powers, right? You do relaize that there is, in fact, a distinct difference between the jurisdictions of Federal and State Governments?
you have read the preamble, right? the first part of your beloved piece of parchment? a more perfect union? operant word being 'union'?
Do you actually think you can just make up some text and post it in here as if it came from The Sanctity of Life Act? And then tack on 'ok whatever you say.' as if I had no idea what I'm talking about? As if I wasn't connected to the internet? As if I couldn't link right to the fucking legislation?
you asshole. you linked the wrong bill. and since we're throwing around accusations, i'll say you did it purposefully.
(7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
happy now?
He didn't either--you might want to read The Declaration of Independence.
fair enough
My actual argument is that there IS a counter argument against having your name attached to multiple statements over the course of 18 years. Yours though, is much easier to implement.
they're not equivalent and you know this, you big baby | | | |
| | | | | | | | nocal:
look at the article. here are the years from which the quotes come:
1978
1983
1987
1988
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
some of the years listed have multiple quotes.
Yes. We can all do the math. Look at 8 letters the racist quotes were taken from--all in about 3 years in the very early 1990's. This is not the big fat 18 year long rampage you're making out to be. These are not his words as you're making them out to be. These are not his beliefs as you're making them out to be. None of this is what youare miking it out to be. Give it up.
nocal:
oh, i just don't believe his excuses and i don't like his half-assed apology shtick. why do you automatically believe him? perhaps his actions in government have been, and forever will be, colorblind. does this mean that in his personal life he is not racist? and that may not bother you, because personal lives can be separate from working lives, but it bothers me. doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the point of view that they can be separate lives, i just personally don't like it.
Ah. The little ray of truth finally shines through. It is irrelevent to you that Ron Paul's Government and actions are color-blind; that in his offical capacity Ron Paul is is not racist in word or deed. But should he prove otherwise privately, you approve of a supreme executive with the almightiest of iron fists to force a man to enjoy a Rainbow Coalition in his private associations.
Your problem with Ron Paul is not that you think he's a Nazi, nocal--your problem is that you know he's not your kind of Nazi.
nocal:
the real estate market is about as stable an investment as one can make, and it has ruined countless people.
Wrong. Speculation on the interest rates used for mortgages has ruined countless people. Real estate is still solid. It's too bad no can tell which way the winds of political favors will drive fiat monetary policy.
nocal:
and again, the gold standard can have volatile fluctuations, and in the past it has had such fluctuations.
I dare you to point it out. Be very careful that the fluctuation you cite is caused by market forces, and not some politcally driven monetary policy.
nocal:
yes it is. you're being silly now. why don't we have a silver standard? there's more of it, and it's world renowned as being valuable. people harp on gold for no good reason, not realizing it's as arbitrary as any commodity.
OK. You're right to a point. The real problem with the gold standard is that we just might suddenly stop valueing gold. But gold is not arbitrary as a standard, in so far as we do, in fact, value it; it is easily divisible, homogenous, portable, concentrated, useful, durable, rare enough to be considered scarce, just common enough to be accessible, and a luxury.
Regardless, gold beats the living fuck out of the truly arbitrary value of IOUs.
nocal:
yeah it scares me so bad. you're not in the ballpark of my point. an influx of gold drove up prices for goods and services, which led to buying foreign products, which led to a dwindling supply of gold, which led to economic collapse. if they had found an enormous mine rather than stealing it, it would have been a similar situation.
Yeah, I that see it does, as you continue to prance away from the reality of what happened. The mistake you're making as a fiat money advocate, is the same mistake the Spanish crown made.
There are natural physiscal limits appurtenant to gold--and gold doesn't lie about it's pay off. There are no limits to the promises of IOUs, and no hope that those issuing them are not liars.
nocal:
first, you'd be an idiot not to undercut debeers with your huge supply. you could make an incredible fortune by selling at a lower price.
secondly, it has happened before. debeers pretty forcefully buys people out.
thirdly, diamonds are extremely plentiful. debeers has a cartel that holds most of their surplus in order to squeeze the market. they also crack, chip, discolor. i have swarmed a long article about this that goes into heavy detail, and my assertions about diamonds are true.
1st: You'd be an idiot to not take full advantage of the market DeBeers has created--so no, I wouldn't flood it.
2nd: ...and that's why diamonds are so inexpensive. Right?
3rd: ...and that's why I'm swimming the the fucking things. In fact, I have guy coming over tomorrow to shovel the filthy pieces of shit into a dumpster and haul them to the dump. I had not even noticed until I read the article you swarmed. Thanks!
nocal:
i am not. i have said the same thing twice and i will say it again: ron paul wants the states to be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want anti-sodomy laws. he wants the states to decide who can buttfuck in their own houses. how is this unclear?
You have made yourself clear now, and you are clearly confused.
Firstly: When proposing that the Federal government has no jurisdiction over an issue because of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, that essentially means you have to say that those issues are reserved for the States or the People. If the issue is the power to legislate, then that is going to be worded in a way peculiar to the State, since that's what the State is empowered to do.
Secondly: Proposing that State governments, rather than the Federal Government, have the power to legislate buttfucking is not an anti-buttfucking position.
I'm sorry that you'd rather have the Federal government decide for everybody in every state who can buttfuck in their own houses. It's bad enough that a State might take such authority within its borders; I'd rather that such wide reaching authority not be granted to the Federal government.
nocal:
you asshole. you linked the wrong bill. and since we're throwing around accusations, i'll say you did it purposefully.
(7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
happy now?
Well asshole, you have no business calling me an asshole just because I know what you're talking about even when you don't. The act you cited (twice) was in fact, 'The Sanctity of Life Act', and that was what I linked to--I linked to the right Bill. What you linked to above, in a fit of Bait and Switch, is the 'We the People Act.' I say you did it purposefully.
nocal:BEYOND ALL THAT
i think that [Ron Paul's] personal beliefs are pretty AWESOME!!!!
You're awesome too nocal, you're awesome too. :2thup: | | | |
| | | | | | | | Yes. We can all do the math. Look at 8 letters the racist quotes were taken from--all in about 3 years in the very early 1990's. This is not the big fat 18 year long rampage you're making out to be. These are not his words as you're making them out to be. These are not his beliefs as you're making them out to be. None of this is what youare miking it out to be. Give it up.
i list the years, you still claim that it's only 3 years. i understand that no matter what, you will never accept that ron paul had anything to do whatsoever with this, but i think that any reasonable person who reads this exchange will side with me. while i admit that you could be right (because anything is possible), i think that your position is unlikely to the point of absurdity.
Your problem with Ron Paul is not that you think he's a Nazi, nocal--your problem is that you know he's not your kind of Nazi.
if these beliefs are in any way supported by ron paul, then i believe it can never be completely separated from his political life. you can believe that, but i don't think it's possible. frantz fannon wrote a lot about this, and i agree that you can't have these separate personalities -- work me, home me, friends me, school me -- without them bleeding over into each other somewhat. so what i am saying is that you may not care that he is personally a racist if it has remained outisde the scope of his policy. i say that it doesn't matter to me because i don't believe that he can keep it completely separate, and i don't think he has. he explains it all away very carefully, in defensible ways, but the article coupled with his legislation stinks to me.
Wrong
right. even the 'safest' investments carry risk. theoretically, anything you can buy at one price can go down in value. people have been ruined buying everything from land to gold, some of them very smart. i didn't mean to imply that current intrest rates have ruined landowners.
I dare you to point it out. Be very careful that the fluctuation you cite is caused by market forces, and not some politcally driven monetary policy.
i did point it out with the spain example, but for some reason you are fixated on the idea that it was stolen gold, which is immaterial. gold does go up and down in value, does it not? that would be a fluctuation. sometimes gold goes up very high in value. sometimes it goes down from there.
additionally any example i give you will claim was a 'politically driven monetary policy,' because every country that has ever had a gold standard has had a government.
But gold is not arbitrary as a standard, in so far as we do, in fact, value it; it is easily divisible, homogenous, portable, concentrated, useful, durable, rare enough to be considered scarce, just common enough to be accessible, and a luxury.
as is silver, and there is more of it. i do appreciate the mild concession here.
There are natural physiscal limits appurtenant to gold--and gold doesn't lie about it's pay off. There are no limits to the promises of IOUs, and no hope that those issuing them are not liars.
i guess what you are suggesting is that the spanish government ultimately failed because they began to rely on credit rather than the physical gold that they spent too quickly. my point was that an influx of gold devalues gold, because there is a supply and a demand, and the supply outstrips the demand. i think we are both correct to a point (although i'm sure you don't agree).
1st: You'd be an idiot to not take full advantage of the market DeBeers has created--so no, I wouldn't flood it.
i never said flood the market, i said undercut debeers. let's say debeers sells a widget for $10 and you sell yours for $9. everyone buys your product. the other option is to just sell the mine to debeers, but they will resell the product, meaning you would make less money. you're mr. free market, think about it.
2nd: ...and that's why diamonds are so inexpensive. Right?
debeers buys out diamond mines from private parties in a very forceful way that borders on illegal. they then control the mine and the product from the mine.
3rd: ...and that's why I'm swimming the the fucking things. In fact, I have guy coming over tomorrow to shovel the filthy pieces of shit into a dumpster and haul them to the dump. I had not even noticed until I read the article you swarmed. Thanks!
you're being stupid. this is the link and it goes into great detail about how debeers is a massive cartel that controls diamonds all over the world. they determine prices, which is why they are expensive. as far as precious gems go, they are extremely plentiful. if you still believe that diamonds are worth so much, get your wife's engagement ring appraised and then try to sell it to the appraiser. they won't buy it because it isn't worth much (they will tell you it's worth a lot so you aren't upset at feeling ripped off, but they won't buy it at that price).
it's like america: we say a dollar is worth a dollar, but that isn't based on anything, and there is nothing to back up the worth :)
I'm sorry that you'd rath |
|
|
