While I am not a supporter of Ron Paul...

[Ivash]

I would just like to wish 'good luck' to all of you guys tomorrow. As said in the title, I am not a supporter of Ron Paul, but I do believe that he has many important things to say, and he definitively has some positions that I would like to see the Republican party begin to adopt (primarily on foreign policy). Even if Dr. Paul does not win this election, you all have already made many people think deeply about their views on a variety of issues. That alone can be seen as a form of success.

So, again, good luck tomorrow. I will be rooting for Dr. Paul to win at least one state.

[frickettz]

Thanks for the kind words. But may I ask, what's preventing you from being a Ron Paul supporter, especially given the fond language?

[kathy88]

Thank you so much.

[LibertyEagle]

Are you supporting Obama, or something? Because unless you are a loyal Democrat, I cannot fathom why you would not be supporting RP if you agree with his foreign policy.

[BuddyRey]

Thanks for the well wishes! We need all we can get right now.

[Ivash]

This post really isn't a 'let me tell you why I am not a Ron Paul supporter', but the main reason is that I am a (proud) moderate. A Rockefeller Republican, if you will. I believe that the government does have a place in the economy, I believe that closing the budget will take a mix of raising revenue and cutting spending (a ration of 3 dollars cut in spending for every dollar raised in new revenue sounds about right), among other things. I have heard on this forum that Ron Paul does not actually support going back on the gold standard, but I have read on many other places that he does want to go back to it- regardless, I believe that would be disastrous.

But, as I said above, this isn't a thread about that. I just want you all to keep up the faith, and keep supporting the cause you think is right. At the very least it is good to have some people who agree with non-interventionism in the Republican Party again. I even plan to send in a donation to Dr. Paul if he does well on Super Tuesday.

[frickettz]

Thanks again for the well wishes, Ivash. And the explanation of your stance. We'll welcome you with wide arms if that day arrives where you might come around to Dr. Paul's message!

[Dsylexic]

well, an interventionist foreign policy is a direct consequence of big govt(interfering in the economy) .it is not possible to separate the two.thanks for thinking about ron paul's ideas

[DanConway]

This post really isn't a 'let me tell you why I am not a Ron Paul supporter', but the main reason is that I am a (proud) moderate. A Rockefeller Republican, if you will. I believe that the government does have a place in the economy, I believe that closing the budget will take a mix of raising revenue and cutting spending (a ration of 3 dollars cut in spending for every dollar raised in new revenue sounds about right). I believe that gun rights should be restricted (at least in cities). I have heard on this forum that Ron Paul does not actually support going back on the gold standard, but I have read on many other places that he does want to go back to it- I believe that would be disastrous.

But, as I said above, this isn't a thread about that. I just want you all to keep up the faith, and keep supporting the cause you think is right. At the very least it is good to have some people who agree with non-interventionism in the Republican Party again. I even plan to send in a donation to Dr. Paul if he does well on Super Tuesday.

I have my disagreements with what you've said there. That should come as no surprise, since I've agreed with Ron Paul on most things as long as I've been thinking about politics (though for several years I didn't know it yet because I didn't know who he was). But in respect to you I won't attempt to debate them here. As you correctly say, it is not the place for it.

Instead, I'll just say thank you for the support.

[Ivash]

I have my disagreements with what you've said there. That should come as no surprise, since I've agreed with Ron Paul on most things as long as I've been thinking about politics (though for several years I didn't know it yet because I didn't know who he was). But in respect to you I won't attempt to debate them here. As you correctly say, it is not the place for it.

Instead, I'll just say thank you for the support.

Is there private chat function on this site? We could always debate there if you wanted.

[DanConway]

There are private messages, but I'm not up for debating now. Another time, maybe. I should try to get back to sleep now.

[kathy88]

Is there private chat function on this site? We could always debate there if you wanted.

There is a chat so you guys can have your fun later :)

[LibertyEagle]

There is a chat so you guys can have your fun later :)

It would probably go better in a new thread started in the forums. I don't think the best minds on economics. etc. spend time in chat.

[LibertyEagle]

//

[Ivash]

It would probably go better in a new thread started in the forums. I don't think the best minds on economics. etc. spend time in chat.

I might do that later, yeah.

[eduardo89]

It would probably go better in a new thread started in the forums. I don't think the best minds on economics. etc. spend time in chat.

Chat is a the braindead wasteland of RPF. Worse than Hot Topics.

[Give me liberty]

Thanks a lot Ivash, Ron Paul has my best wishes as well.

I do Hope That Today he wins a few states.

[XTreat]

Chat is a the braindead wasteland of RPF. Worse than Hot Topics.

indeed.

[PaulConventionWV]

This post really isn't a 'let me tell you why I am not a Ron Paul supporter', but the main reason is that I am a (proud) moderate. A Rockefeller Republican, if you will. I believe that the government does have a place in the economy, I believe that closing the budget will take a mix of raising revenue and cutting spending (a ration of 3 dollars cut in spending for every dollar raised in new revenue sounds about right). I believe that gun rights should be restricted (at least in cities). I have heard on this forum that Ron Paul does not actually support going back on the gold standard, but I have read on many other places that he does want to go back to it- regardless, I believe that would be disastrous.

But, as I said above, this isn't a thread about that. I just want you all to keep up the faith, and keep supporting the cause you think is right. At the very least it is good to have some people who agree with non-interventionism in the Republican Party again. I even plan to send in a donation to Dr. Paul if he does well on Super Tuesday.

You'll come around someday. Thanks for the well wishes. It's very good that you agree with his foreign policy and shows that you at least have some sense. Yes, the government vs. no government issues are not as black and white, but I am curious about your stance on gun control. What do you say to the argument that, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns? That seems to poke a hole in the gun control logic.

[AhuwaleKaNaneHuna]

The well wishes are a good thing indeed, thank you. :)

For anyone else who may have the same misconception about Paul and the gold standard,Ii do NEED to clear it up. The ONLY way Paul would feel comfortable with going to a gold standard NOW, is if it is done as a competing currency to fiat money, because he knows it would not work as was said. ;)

[opinionatedfool]

Thanks ivash!

[PaulConventionWV]

Is there private chat function on this site? We could always debate there if you wanted.

You can message me if you want to discuss the issues. I would be happy to talk about the things you mentioned, especially regarding my latest post about gun control. Just click on my name and you will have the option to private message. Thanks.

[PaulConventionWV]

It would probably go better in a new thread started in the forums. I don't think the best minds on economics. etc. spend time in chat.

They will if they know there's a discussion in chat. ;)

[Sola_Fide]

Chat is a the braindead wasteland of RPF. Worse than Hot Topics.

Definitely. I never go on it after the first couple times I did.

[papitosabe]

I have my disagreements with what you've said there. That should come as no surprise, since I've agreed with Ron Paul on most things as long as I've been thinking about politics (though for several years I didn't know it yet because I didn't know who he was). But in respect to you I won't attempt to debate them here. As you correctly say, it is not the place for it.

Instead, I'll just say thank you for the support.


You can message me if you want to discuss the issues. I would be happy to talk about the things you mentioned, especially regarding my latest post about gun control. Just click on my name and you will have the option to private message. Thanks.

http://mychinaconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/hook-line-and-sinker.gif


Is there private chat function on this site? We could always debate there if you wanted.

[Sola_Fide]

This post really isn't a 'let me tell you why I am not a Ron Paul supporter', but the main reason is that I am a (proud) moderate. A Rockefeller Republican, if you will. I believe that the government does have a place in the economy, I believe that closing the budget will take a mix of raising revenue and cutting spending (a ration of 3 dollars cut in spending for every dollar raised in new revenue sounds about right). I believe that gun rights should be restricted (at least in cities). I have heard on this forum that Ron Paul does not actually support going back on the gold standard, but I have read on many other places that he does want to go back to it- regardless, I believe that would be disastrous.

But, as I said above, this isn't a thread about that. I just want you all to keep up the faith, and keep supporting the cause you think is right. At the very least it is good to have some people who agree with non-interventionism in the Republican Party again. I even plan to send in a donation to Dr. Paul if he does well on Super Tuesday.

Appreciate the well-wishes, but your political worldview seems mixed up to me. Mises showed a long time ago that intervention in the domestic economy is the first step to nationalism, and then eventually to intervention in foreign economies, which leads to war. The free market is the sure foundation for peace.

Also, what "place" do you think government has a role in our economy? Does it have the role to bailout politically connected rich people with money it steals from middle class and poor people? Does it have the role preventing law-abiding people from defending themselves against armed criminals? Don't these kinds of things make government seem criminal when you think about them? Why is it moral for a person in government to steal from someone, but it is immoral for a person not inside the government to steal from another?

[parke]

Ivash.. please note that the only crime a person that doesnt have a gun commits.. is following the law, when a robber that knows he has no weapon robs or kills him. Ive lived in plenty of cities. The only people that carry guns in places with strict gun laws are criminals. You literally support taking away the right of a person to defend himself and arm the criminals. Im not trying to be mean.. but get a grip. Had law abiding citizens been armed in cities with high crime rates, there would be less victims and more convictions and justice. Dont take my word for it.. just google the crime statistics for any city that imposed gun bans. I lived in NYC and worked in the Bronx. Its illegal to carry guns there.. and I saw more guns than Ive ever seen in my life in that one year I lived there. Most people are good, moral people. Taking away the right to defend oneself is more dangerous than allowing the majority of good people the right to defend themselves. Just my two cents. :)

[shrugged0106]

Thanks for the kind sentiments Ivash, but who do you support for the Presidency this year that best matches your views?

[vechorik]

Definitely. I never go on it after the first couple times I did.

I agree. New people visiting Ron Paul Forums should stay out of chat.

The OP well-wishes are appreciated. What warms my heart most is open dialog.

[wgadget]

I'm gonna guess he's a Romneyite.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm gonna guess he's a Romneyite.

Ah...he must be our secret ally then:)

[jdcole]

But...I hang out in the chat?

:confused:

[thoughtomator]

OP seems reasonable and non-hostile... maybe not a current RP supporter, but seems to me to be on the path to be a future RP supporter.

[Ivash]

I'm gonna guess he's a Romneyite.

Not quite. I did rather like Tim Pawlenty earlier in the cycle, but he is out now, so I no longer have a horse in the race.

[nedomedo]

Thank you for your kind words and for explaining some of your disagreements with RP. I actually disagree with him on the Gold Standard and Fiat money, but I try not to mention it as much here because people will start being assholes lol

[lib3rtarian]

I would just like to wish 'good luck' to all of you guys tomorrow. As said in the title, I am not a supporter of Ron Paul, but I do believe that he has many important things to say, and he definitively has some positions that I would like to see the Republican party begin to adopt (primarily on foreign policy). Even if Dr. Paul does not win this election, you all have already made many people think deeply about their views on a variety of issues. That alone can be seen as a form of success.

So, again, good luck tomorrow. I will be rooting for Dr. Paul to win at least one state.

Thanks mate. God knows we need all the luck we can get.

I can certainly appreciate people like you who knows Paul's message, but just has a different opinion. Contrast that to people in Paul's own party who purposefully distorts his message.

Regarding your differences in opinion, pretty sure that after talking with the guys here you will have a different view, but we will leave that up to you if you want to follow that route or not.

Beware though - once you "GET" it, you cannot "UNGET" it. Your life will be changed forever. I know mine did.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Not quite. I did rather like Tim Pawlenty earlier in the cycle, but he is out now, so I no longer have a horse in the race.

He endorsed Romney. Why not him?

[papitosabe]

Thank you for your kind words and for explaining some of your disagreements with RP. I actually disagree with him on the Gold Standard and Fiat money, but I try not to mention it as much here because people will start being assholes lol

for those that disagree on the gold standard / fiat debate, could you explain something for me please, because I see the same disagreement in other forums and I'm just trying to understand.

1. RP speaks of a gold standard, but I think I've also heard him speak of competing currencies, not sure what options that gives. Is that not a good thing?

2. If you don't support this gold backing he speaks of, why would you back a system where the dollar keeps devalueing?

3. If you don't support a new system, are you fine with the FED, or would you prefer a new system? if so, what system?

4. If you do support the FED, are you against the bailouts they and the gov't have done?

5. What are your thoughts on the statement that has been made on silver/gold pricing goes up, but the dollar goes down? I don't understand how someone could disagree with RP wanting to get rid of this current system.

I'm probably oversimplifying things, as its prob way more complicated, but thats just how I see it. I may be way off.

[millercards]

It should also be noted that once things are outlawed, those items just give the black market more power.

Imagine where gangs and cartels would be if no one bought drugs or guns from them.

[azxd]

Ivash,
I'll just say think you and that I'll look for a future thread(s) where the items you have mentioned can be discussed individually.

[LibertyEagle]

Thank you for your kind words and for explaining some of your disagreements with RP. I actually disagree with him on the Gold Standard and Fiat money, but I try not to mention it as much here because people will start being assholes lol

This is interesting. Would you please explain why you prefer fiat money whose valuation is left up to the whims of a private cabal of bankers?

[D.A.S.]

I think we need to be grateful and welcoming to have folks like Ivash on this forum. While our convictions are very strong, we need to continue to listen to other points of view and brainstorm together on the best course for our country. Ron Paul is an incredible inspiration to us all with his honesty, principle, consistency, and utmost respect for the Constitution. We know the current system is broken in a lot of ways, and we root for Ron Paul because we know he is the one politician who can never be bought or sold. But we must realize also that Ron Paul may not have ALL the answers in his policies and convictions and that we as individuals still need to think for ourselves and dig for the truth and stick with our convictions, if those convictions are coming from the right sources. So please take care not to flame or disrespect folks like Ivash but instead to cultivate intelligent conversation and politely debate the views.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Very nice remarks and even though you are not a supporter we welcome you here and maybe we can learn something from each other. I would like to stick up for the bulk of the chatters though. There are some very brilliant people who are regulars in chat and a wide range of topics are discussed as well as planning for many events. Chat tends to joke around a lot though since so many of the people there have been friends for years and have met each other at events all across the country. It is also a place where you can sometimes leave politics at the door and just discuss whatever is on your mind or just share a few laughs and blow off some steam. So come into chat anytime you like as I know many people would love to have a great discussion with you on a wide variety of topics.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Appreciate your compliment OP. However, like many of us here, we do caution you to choose wisely. What's on the line is more important than our personal beliefs. Already be open-minded, and research. You have a good one!

[heavenlyboy34]

Chat is a the braindead wasteland of RPF. Worse than Hot Topics.
This ^^

[asurfaholic]

Welcome.. and thanks for the kind words!

[nedomedo]

This is interesting. Would you please explain why you prefer fiat money whose valuation is left up to the whims of a private cabal of bankers?

I think gold can be manipulated just as much as federal reserve notes, and besides who has all the gold?

I am a greenbacker.

[DerailingDaTrain]

I think gold can be manipulated just as much as federal reserve notes, and besides who has all the gold?

I am a greenbacker.

fail

[cdc482]

We need more people like Ivash.
I am a libertarian, but I will proudly vote for Ralph Nader and other honest progressives.

[cstarace]

We need more people like Ivash.
I am a libertarian, but I will proudly vote for Ralph Nader and other honest progressives.
Then you do so in defiance of Dr. Paul and this movement; never compromise when it comes to the Constitution. Ever.

[freedomforever!]

Then you do so in defiance of Dr. Paul and this movement; never compromise when it comes to the Constitution. Ever.

Yes! So true.

[ssjevot]

I'll take an honest progressive/socialist over a fake like Romney any day of the week.

[Ivash]

We need more people like Ivash.
I am a libertarian, but I will proudly vote for Ralph Nader and other honest progressives.

I'm, uh, not much of a progressive. I'm just a moderate. I feel like the center is the best place to bring people together and to make the country a better place.

And thanks for the compliments, everyone. I know I disagree with people here more than, well, almost everyone, but that's probably because almost everyone here is a supporter of Ron Paul except for me. That makes me see the world differently than ya'll (not saying that is a good thing or a bad thing, it just is), and so I don't see a lot of things you guys see. For instance, I don't believe that significant fraud is occurring, or that Romney has no chance of beating Obama- though I admit that his chances aren't great at all. But I'm fairly reasonable (on most, but not all, topics), so a persuasive argument can convince me one way or the other.

[sailingaway]

I'm, uh, not much of a progressive. I'm just a moderate. I feel like the center is the best place to bring people together and to make the country a better place.

And thanks for the compliments, everyone. I know I disagree with people here more than, well, almost everyone, but that's probably because almost everyone here is a supporter of Ron Paul except for me. That makes me see the world differently than ya'll (not saying that is a good thing or a bad thing, it just is), and so I don't see a lot of things you guys see. For instance, I don't believe that significant fraud is occurring, or that Romney has no chance of beating Obama- though I admit that his chances aren't great at all. But I'm fairly reasonable (on most, but not all, topics), so a persuasive argument can convince me one way or the other.

People here can have different beliefs and don't always express them. I don't mind honest beliefs, even if they are in the middle. It is compromise to the point of having no principles that disgusts me. And some people considered to be 'in the middle' are really that, imho, at least in DC.

Thanks for your comments, though.

[CaptainAmerica]

weird post is weird.

[Evangelical_Protestant]

I have a hard time agreeing to disagree. My stance allow people to pursue what they think are their interest, other people's stance take alot of my ability to pursue what I think are my interests away from me.
I choose to love you, but still proclaim you my political enemy.

[unknown]

This post really isn't a 'let me tell you why I am not a Ron Paul supporter', but the main reason is that I am a (proud) moderate. A Rockefeller Republican, if you will. I believe that the government does have a place in the economy, I believe that closing the budget will take a mix of raising revenue and cutting spending (a ration of 3 dollars cut in spending for every dollar raised in new revenue sounds about right). I believe that gun rights should be restricted (at least in cities). I have heard on this forum that Ron Paul does not actually support going back on the gold standard, but I have read on many other places that he does want to go back to it- regardless, I believe that would be disastrous.

Well, at-least you admit youre not a fiscal nor a small government conservative.

Three dollars cut for every new dollar raised. You may be the first Republican Ive come across who thinks we should raise taxes, that the government doesnt take enough of our money.

And who outlaws guns in the cities, the federal government? People deserve the right to defend themselves, even in New York.

Dont know if its possible to go back to the gold standard but yes it would be nice if the government were forced to be fiscally conservative and if we could redeem our dollars for the gold allegedly held in Fort Knox. But we had to fund yet another war at the time, Vietnam and many more since then.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ApIydfgbY&feature=fvst

[patriot2008]

The chat varies a lot, just as it would on any other site that is not highly controlled. It's great to pick up quick links and instant info, especially during an event. At other times it can be more social, entertaining, or even people venting or being silly. It's a chat, take it for what you want, anyone could be there, even including very worthwhile, helpful, dedicated Ron Paul supporters. The chat can be enjoyable, if not check it at different times or try to make it better. There seems to ofter be a variety of people there, some pretty knowledgeable, that also participate in threads, and discuss threads and news there. The people who post in threads also vary a lot too, so do the posts, but overall this is the best forum on the net. Try the chat, or try it again and bring some positives.:)

[Ivash]

Well, at-least you admit youre not a fiscal nor a small government conservative.

Three dollars cut for every new dollar raised. You may be the first Republican Ive come across who thinks we should raise taxes, that the government doesnt take enough of our money.

And who outlaws guns in the cities, the federal government? People deserve the right to defend themselves, even in New York.

Dont know if its possible to go back to the gold standard but yes it would be nice if the government were forced to be fiscally conservative and if we could redeem our dollars for the gold allegedly held in Fort Knox. But we had to fund yet another war at the time, Vietnam and many more since then.

Well, first and foremost, when I say raising revenue I don't actually mean raising taxes. What I mean is that there are way too many loopholes for way too many special interests, and that cutting them all will raise revenue. Multiple reports I have seen show that we could even lower taxes if we cut out some of the more ridiculous loopholes, and in all honesty I have no problem whatsoever with the government making those companies and interests pay the amount that they should.

As for gun laws, I'm actually increasingly apathetic about them. They have worked in some cases (such as in England, where the amount of people that die by bullet wounds is something like 50 a year, or, in other words, insignificantly small), but a bit of fact checking on my part shows that more often than not they don't work in the United States. If they don't work in the US, then I'm against the US restricting guns. When I have more time I'll go over some more facts and see where they lead me. I even changed that post to indicate my evolving beliefs.

Finally, I also believe going to the gold standard would be an utter disaster.

[sailingaway]

Ron wants competing currency so you can save in precious metal and not pay capital gains tax when you spend it, so your life savings on retirement don't depreciate at the whim of Fed action. Bernanke even said he'd be very glad to speak to Ron about that. I think it is going to be his legacy legislation, to be honest, in the House.

But what he really wants, Constitution aside, is a basket of commodities backing money, Hayek style. But if you look at his 'Plan to Restore America' which goes for an entire presidential term, that isn't in it. It is a philosophical position to work towards. Much of his philosophy is that, but he has interim steps to move in that direction. In that case, that would be competing currencies allowed, such as gold and silver, for those who want to use them.

[wgadget]

Ron does not advocate "going to the gold standard," but rather, allowing competing currencies. Big difference.

[Ivash]

Ron does not advocate "going to the gold standard," but rather, allowing competing currencies. Big difference.

This was in response to the post I quoted. I have said earlier in the thread that I (was) not even sure if Ron Paul supported going back to the gold standard or not, considering the different responses I have gotten on the question (even from people who are themselves Ron Paul supporters).

[unknown]

Well, first and foremost, when I say raising revenue I don't actually mean raising taxes. What I mean is that there are way too many loopholes for way too many special interests, and that cutting them all will raise revenue. Multiple reports I have seen show that we could even lower taxes if we cut out some of the more ridiculous loopholes, and in all honesty I have no problem whatsoever with the government making those companies and interests pay the amount that they should.

As for gun laws, I'm actually increasingly apathetic about them. They have worked in some cases (such as in England, where the amount of people that die by bullet wounds is something like 50 a year, or, in other words, insignificantly small), but a bit of fact checking on my part shows that more often than not they don't work in the United States. If they don't work in the US, then I'm against the US restricting guns. When I have more time I'll go over some more facts and see where they lead me. I even changed that post to indicate my evolving beliefs.

Finally, I also believe going to the gold standard would be an utter disaster.

Not defending corporations, we were all against the bailouts under both Bush and Obama but the government already takes WAY too much of our money.

As for gun free England, violent crime worse in Britain than in US. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html)

Right, which is why I linked Peter Schiff's opinion, who someone like Ron Paul, has a proven track record of being correct.

[muh_roads]

Competing currencies are a roadmap to the gold standard. He wants to prove to the people first that prices go up for US dollars while prices would remain the same and fall for metals and see them both side by side.

I think pricing everything twice is a great idea. At least let the market do so if they wish. Paul wouldn't force a law mandating such a thing. Right now the laws don't allow local communities to do this if they wish it.

You never need to expand the currency to expand an economy. An economy can expand on a gold standard just fine. It just means money becomes more rare with time. If money is harder to come by, then prices fall.

Another idea that people have in their heads is that you must physically trade with heavy coins. Paper dollars and credit cards can still work on a gold standard just fine. It just means the banks can't dillute what they don't have. The banks must have metal in their vaults and the representative money in circulation must represent their holdings.

Believe me if prices fall the way they should, there would be no need for all the loans people need to take out today. And saving would actually mean something again. And those that do would never have to worry about retirement. Being against the gold standard is like saying "I want the scammers at the top to take my money". Being against the gold standard is like saying "I want my future to be in doubt and full of worry."

[Ivash]

Not defending corporations, we were all against the bailouts under both Bush and Obama but the government already takes WAY too much of our money.

As for gun free England, violent crime worse in Britain than in US. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html)

Right, which is why I linked Peter Schiff's opinion, who someone like Ron Paul, has a proven track record of being correct.

I don't disagree with the tax bit, which is why I support reforming the tax code so there are many less loopholes (particularly for corporations, but for individual groups as well) and lowering the tax rate. The amount of money saved via loopholes is outrageous, so the gov could raise revenue even if they lowered the actual tax rate. This, combined with cuts, should led to a debt situation much better than the one currently. It would also be much easier to actually pass into law.

Your point on British crime is well taken. As of now I would need to look into the matter more clearly before redefining my position, but that statistic is still telling.

And there are many economists (some who have proven track records of being correct) that say that linking the dollar with gold would be disastrous, not the least because there isn't enough gold in the world to back all of the US dollars out currently. Neither you nor I are going to be the ones who answer this particular question, and since Ron Paul isn't even advocating it it really isn't something worth debating about here.

[jbuttell]

I'm, uh, not much of a progressive. I'm just a moderate. I feel like the center is the best place to bring people together and to make the country a better place.

No offense, but I think most 'moderates' are the ones responsible for the election of these horrible politicians that are destroying this country. I think most self-proclaimed progressives really could be lumped in with moderates. Romney, Obama etc are mainly distinguishable by their rhetoric, but their actions are so very similar. A little spending here, a little waring over here - but not too much! Don't want to mistakenly get into a thermonuclear war! Don't devaluate the dollar too quickly!! Don't want to get the small people up in arms! Raise taxes.... but not too much!! Wouldn't want to send the wrong signals...!

Bush and now Obama have set new 'normals' where perpetual war IS the new moderate position. To not have war would invite terrorists! Ron Paul, who wants to immediately stop the wars while strengthening our defenses is the new extreme. Ron Paul, who wants to truly reverse the out of control spending, is the new extreme. Ron Paul who stands virtually alone (at least in the presidential field) in voicing concern about the steady erosion of the Bill of Rights - is the new extreme.

So how do you distinguish your "middle of the road" philosophy from these criminals in office who want to tinker with the system while continuing this ridiculous dog and pony show leading to this country's increasingly inevitable demise? The steady ride down the middle leads to a very dangerous place. Radical changes are needed before we can afford to have moderates back in power.

[Proph]

I don't disagree with the tax bit, which is why I support reforming the tax code so there are many less loopholes (particularly for corporations, but for individual groups as well) and lowering the tax rate. The amount of money saved via loopholes is outrageous, so the gov could raise revenue even if they lowered the actual tax rate. This, combined with cuts, should led to a debt situation much better than the one currently. It would also be much easier to actually pass into law.

Your point on British crime is well taken. As of now I would need to look into the matter more clearly before redefining my position, but that statistic is still telling.

And there are many economists (some who have proven track records of being correct) that say that linking the dollar with gold would be disastrous, not the least because there isn't enough gold in the world to back all of the US dollars out currently. Neither you nor I are going to be the ones who answer this particular question, and since Ron Paul isn't even advocating it it really isn't something worth debating about here.

If we do it rapidly, that's a possibility. However, that's the reason for competing currency. The idea would be to slowly work back to a monetary system that's backed by gold. Instead of constantly printing more federal reserve notes, we can start deflating by taking money out of the system (raising the value of the dollar in comparison to gold in the process).

That's how I understand it, at least.