[Video] Steve Forbes says Ron Paul is Right about Monetary Policy

[Tyler_Durden]

More Ron Pauling of the Monetary Policy. Spread it!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgssUjf7VGk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[camp_steveo]

Steve Forbes can kiss my ass. Ron Paul is running for President, not chairman of the thing that should not be.

[Tyler_Durden]

Mayor Bloomberg said something similar right before the NY Primary.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/fe7119f887fd4513aba84730db5f0dc9/MD--Hopkins-Bloomberg

[The Goat]

translation: We really need a sound money guy to be in charge when we crash this thing. We can spin that into another 100 years of monetary control.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

translation: We really need a sound money guy to be in charge when we crash this thing.

Actually the master plan is to have Romney at the helm so he can liquidate America when it goes bankrupt.

[Bern]

Wish Steve had the conviction to push the issue when it mattered instead of supporting Rick Perry in exchange for support of his flat tax agenda.

[Bastiat's The Law]

He supported Perry lol

[tbone717]

Forbes is a good guy. While he did endorse Perry this year, keep in mind that he endorsed Rand, Amash and Schiff in 2010.

[stu2002]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2012/04/steve-forbes-ron-paul-should-be-chairman-of-the-fed/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

[wgadget]

As President, I'm sure he will appoint a suitable Chairman to shut it down.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Forbes is a good guy. While he did endorse Perry this year, keep in mind that he endorsed Rand, Amash and Schiff in 2010.

Not good enough

[tbone717]

Not good enough

Oh that's right, unless someone is 100% on our side, 100% of the time they are the enemy. Sorry I forgot the mantra. I'll immediately submit myself for re-education.

[sailingaway]

Forbes is a good guy. While he did endorse Perry this year, keep in mind that he endorsed Rand, Amash and Schiff in 2010.

not presidential level.

[sailingaway]

Oh that's right, unless someone is 100% on our side, 100% of the time they are the enemy. Sorry I forgot the mantra. I'll immediately submit myself for re-education.

If his principles go with Ron Rand and Schiff, he had no principled basis for supporting Perry.

[tbone717]

If his principles go with Ron Rand and Schiff, he had no principled basis for supporting Perry.

Yes, yes I apologize. I forgot that we have one way of thinking here. As my penance, I will listen to 40 hours of Alex Jones broadcasts and write and essay detailing the evils of anyone who ever voted contrary to the way Ron Paul has.

[sailingaway]

Yes, yes I apologize. I forgot that we have one way of thinking here. As my penance, I will listen to 40 hours of Alex Jones broadcasts and write and essay detailing the evils of anyone who ever voted contrary to the way Ron Paul has.

I've never listened to an entire Alex Jones broadcast in my life. That ^^ is insulting forum members and a low value post combined. Sort of a two-fer.

But this IS Ron Paul Forums. If you want to be amongst people who think he should have voted differently you might find more like minded people elsewhere.

[tbone717]

I've never listened to an entire Alex Jones broadcast in my life. That ^^ is insulting forum members and a low value post combined. Sort of a two-fer.

And so is thinking that someone cannot possibly agree with Amash, Rand and Schiff and have agreements with other "not as pure" politicians.

[sailingaway]

Disagreement is rampant, insults and mocking are not ok.

[tbone717]

Disagreement is rampant, insults and mocking are not ok.

The point was that not everyone has to follow lockstep with us, 100% of the time on 100% of the issues to be a decent guy. Believing that everyone has to be "pure" is cult like.

[sailingaway]

"cult like" is insulting.

They all take an oath to follow the Constitution. They all should follow it. If that is too pure for you, I wonder why you are here. Again.

[TheGrinch]

The point was that not everyone has to follow lockstep with us, 100% of the time on 100% of the issues to be a decent guy. Believing that everyone has to be "pure" is cult like.
Actually, I'd say that having principles, but sacrificing them to rally around a guy your views are diametrically opposed to, purely for the sake of "Anyone but Obama" and not because he stands for your principles, is pretty freaking cult-like. This is a principled movement bigger than Dr. Paul, while people who rally around Romney could be considered a cult of personality (or ratehr a cult against personality, to where they'll sacrifice every last ideal just to have a chance to beat Obama).

You're really starting to go overboard in your rudeness, but remain remarkably consistent in unfairly painting a broad brush about a movement you're supposedly a part of.

[tbone717]

"cult like" is insulting.

They all take an oath to follow the Constitution. They all should follow it. If that is too pure for you, I wonder why you are here. Again.

Forbes is NOT an elected official. He was the choice of many libertarians when he ran in 96 and in 00. There are many, many issues that libertarians would agree with him on particularly economically. However, it seems there is a tendency here to dismiss anyone and everyone who does not follow lock step with a certain ideology, and believe that they are all "enemies of liberty" if they dare divert from the charted course. It shows an intolerance, that honestly, one would see more so among far left wing ideologues than you do among libertarians and conservatives.

[TheGrinch]

Forbes is NOT an elected official. He was the choice of many libertarians when he ran in 96 and in 00. There are many, many issues that libertarians would agree with him on particularly economically. However, it seems there is a tendency here to dismiss anyone and everyone who does not follow lock step with a certain ideology, and believe that they are all "enemies of liberty" if they dare divert from the charted course. It shows an intolerance, that honestly, one would see more so among far left wing ideologues than you do among libertarians and conservatives.
Stop being hyperbolic... We don't like that he's sacrificing his principles by supporting Romney. No one is making the claims that you're putting in our mouths, and you're being unnecessarily negative about us simply not liking that republicans are rallying behind Romney, despite the fact they probably don't even like what he stands for (whatever that might be this particular week).

(Edit: Sorry, Perry, same freaking difference)

[tbone717]

Stop being hyperbolic... We don't like that he's sacrificing his principles by supporting Romney. No one is making the claims that you're putting in our mouths, and you're being unnecessarily negative about us simply not liking that republicans are rallying behind Romney, despite the fact they probably don't even like what he stands for (whatever that might be this particular week).

Actually, the reference was concerning Forbes' endorsement of Perry. My point was that even though he endorsed Perry this year, he has supported libertarians in the past, very enthusiastically in fact. The man is a decent guy, was all I was saying. But of course, there are some here that can't handle that, and feel the need to put down everyone who shows the slight bit of variance from purity. That way of thinking is not what the greater libertarian conservative movement has been about, but it appears more and more as the Ron Paul segment of the movement solidifies itself, it becomes more and more exclusionary. Hell mosey over the the Rand forum and look how some of the dedicated Ron Paul supporters bash Rand.

[sailingaway]

Forbes is NOT an elected official. He was the choice of many libertarians when he ran in 96 and in 00. There are many, many issues that libertarians would agree with him on particularly economically. However, it seems there is a tendency here to dismiss anyone and everyone who does not follow lock step with a certain ideology, and believe that they are all "enemies of liberty" if they dare divert from the charted course. It shows an intolerance, that honestly, one would see more so among far left wing ideologues than you do among libertarians and conservatives.

I don't recognize that description of the people here. I think we are here because we share dedication to overlapping principles, and those are what are important to us. Obviously, deviation from what is important to us makes a candidate more or less attractive.

I'm not saying Forbes is a horrible person, only that in endorsing Perry rather than Ron when Ron was available, that he is using a criterion clearly different from ours. When he endorses our guys, obviously that pleases me.

But Barr was also the choice of 'many libertarians'. I don't find that argument persuasive. Perhaps that is because libertarian as a label, rather than as a set of principles does nothing for me. And depending on who is defining the label, the principles may or may not be those I agree with. Certain people seem to USE that label to try to get others to 'fall in line' with their agenda.

and now there seems to be a new hammer you are devising of 'libertarian conservative' label. I don't find labels persuasive, and if that movement is 'greater' why are you trying to coopt the Ron Paul movement?

[Tyler_Durden]

Aside from all this back and forth, I'm just happy I have a 40sec soundbite I can spread around.

[sailingaway]

Actually, the reference was concerning Forbes' endorsement of Perry. My point was that even though he endorsed Perry this year, he has supported libertarians in the past, very enthusiastically in fact. The man is a decent guy, was all I was saying. But of course, there are some here that can't handle that, and feel the need to put down everyone who shows the slight bit of variance from purity. That way of thinking is not what the greater libertarian conservative movement has been about, but it appears more and more as the Ron Paul segment of the movement solidifies itself, it becomes more and more exclusionary. Hell mosey over the the Rand forum and look how some of the dedicated Ron Paul supporters bash Rand.

seems to me you are the one rife with put downs.

[tbone717]

seems to me you are the one rife with put downs.

Just stating the obvious. If this segment of the movement wishes to continue and have influence it will need to accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree with us 100% of the time on 100% of the issues, and that there are many who may differ from us on a position or two, or may endorse someone we like and then someone we don't without that person needing to be vilified for their actions. When it comes to Forbes, his focus has always been on the economic side of things, particularly the flat tax (which has been his pet issue for decades). Saying he essentially sold out his principles by endorsing Perry is disingenuous. He may have sold out YOUR principles, but not his own.

[tbone717]

and now there seems to be a new hammer you are devising of 'libertarian conservative' label. I don't find labels persuasive, and if that movement is 'greater' why are you trying to coopt the Ron Paul movement?

No co-option, but there is a broader and longer standing libertarian conservative movement that has been in existence prior to the Paul campaign. I have stated that since day one of my being on here. The Ron Paul segment of the movement, as defined by this very forum exists for the purpose of getting Paul the nomination. You have stated that yourself many times, that the purpose of the forum is to work towards getting Paul nominated. The broader movement is the one that exists outside of this sole race and is working to elect Amash, Massie, Bradley and others and the very same movement that was there for Buchanan, Sanford, Benson, Johnson, Weld and others throughout the years.

If Paul fails at getting the nomination it will be interesting to see where this segment of the movement goes. Who stays involved, and who doesn't. There will be an ongoing existing movement to reform the GOP, but whether or not the majority of people on RPF and DP take part in that is yet to be seen.

[Bern]

If you want RPF members to join the RLC and help the cause, you probably shouldn't hurl insults at them. Flies; vinegar; honey.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Yes.

[JebSanderson]

He wouldn't have a job for very long ;)

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Saying he essentially sold out his principles by endorsing Perry is disingenuous. He may have sold out YOUR principles, but not his own.

If he was "supporting" liberty-minded individuals in the past and instead endorsed Perry, he had no principles to begin with.

[wizardwatson]

Ron Paul should be retired already. Don't know how much more people expect from this man.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

If he was "supporting" liberty-minded individuals in the past and instead endorsed Perry, he had no principles to begin with.

On the surface, Perry looks pretty good. I doubt Forbes looked very deep as this forum does. Even with his issues, I would prefer Perry to Gingrich/Romney/Santorum easily.

[bunklocoempire]

Actually the master plan is to have Romney at the helm so he can liquidate America when it goes bankrupt.

Classic.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

On the surface, Perry looks pretty good. I doubt Forbes looked very deep as this forum does. Even with his issues, I would prefer Perry to Gingrich/Romney/Santorum easily.

So that just proves how lazy he is (I'm assuming he donated money to his campaign as well). And again, if Forbes was supposedly libertarian-lite, why go for Perry when Paul was in the race all along?

[The Free Hornet]

The point was that not everyone has to follow lockstep with us, 100% of the time on 100% of the issues to be a decent guy. Believing that everyone has to be "pure" is cult like.

He is a ZERO on the issue of drug decriminalization:


Drugs are designed to dull our moral integrity. (Nov 1999)
Legalization makes America safe for Colombian drug cartels. (Nov 1999)
Avoid violating rights, but fight drugs more vigorously. (Jul 1999)
No medicinal marijuana - create synthetics instead. (May 1999)
Tolerating drugs implies abandoning children. (May 1999)
Societal self-help is like 1820s Temperance Movement. (Nov 1995)

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Steve_Forbes_Drugs.htm

This implies he will also,

A) Fail to protect our civil rights - the main casualty of the drug war

B) Favor professional licensing - doctors as state-approved gatekeepers

C) Continue the failures of the FDA and the abuses of big pharma and medicinal patents
(e.g., "More Rx support, to avoid cross-border drug buying." - protect BIG pharma)

D) Favor the large, intrusive police state and its perpetual necessity



On January 28, 2010 he formally endorsed Marco Rubio, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in the State of Florida.[21]

He endorsed incumbent U.S. Senator John McCain, Republican of the State of Arizona for re-election in 2010.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes#Political_endorsements_for_2010

He is a pro-intervention, big military guy.

Now, I understand and like Steve Forbes and wish he was our choice in 1996 (over Dole). I was excited about a long shot candidate who was an improvement over the others. Given the possiblity of Ron Paul, a metric shit load improvement over every other person on the big stages, Steve Forbes did not support him.

It is not pettiness that makes me dislike Forbes (e.g., "I supported Forbes but Forbes didn't support Ron Paul.") rather I am judging his character by the immoral act of endorsing Rick Perry over Ron Paul. Imagine the straight-laced Steve Forbes giving all his opinions about small government and freedom and empowering the individual. The Rick Perry endorsement is when he bursts out laughing and says, "Fuck you all - I was just kidding!".

Anybody who believes in just half of what Forbes has claimed, would have been a Ron Paul supporter. This isn't about 100%! It is about a sub-70% failing grade. Steve Forbes isn't close and I see zero point in having kind words about him.

[Pisces]

No co-option, but there is a broader and longer standing libertarian conservative movement that has been in existence prior to the Paul campaign. I have stated that since day one of my being on here. The Ron Paul segment of the movement, as defined by this very forum exists for the purpose of getting Paul the nomination. You have stated that yourself many times, that the purpose of the forum is to work towards getting Paul nominated. The broader movement is the one that exists outside of this sole race and is working to elect Amash, Massie, Bradley and others and the very same movement that was there for Buchanan, Sanford, Benson, Johnson, Weld and others throughout the years.



William Weld? I thought he was more of a Rockefeller Republican. What makes him a libertarian conservative other than the fact that he is a social liberal? If that's all it takes to be supported by the RLC, then I guess Rudy Guiliani is a "libertarian-conservative" as well.

[Paul Revered]

Perhaps Forbes should buy a clue. It appears that he hasn't heard Ron Paul's call to END THE FED!

[Liberty74]

Forbes is a good guy. While he did endorse Perry this year, keep in mind that he endorsed Rand, Amash and Schiff in 2010.

I actually supported Forbes back in 1996. He has a better grasp on the issues than most politicians.

[Liberty74]

So that just proves how lazy he is (I'm assuming he donated money to his campaign as well). And again, if Forbes was supposedly libertarian-lite, why go for Perry when Paul was in the race all along?

Why did the Tea Party pass on Ron Paul if they were anti-bailout and anti-Obamacare? Yet they supported candidates, Newt, Herman, Perry and Mitt, who supported the bailouts and the national healthcare mandate.

Most people don't vote for something. They vote against something or someone. So the question becomes with Forbes, what is it about Ron Paul is he against? We already know for most Republicans it is their misperception of Ron's foreign policy.

[presence]

Put your money where you mouth is Steve. We could use another Theil.

Seriously, we need somebody in the ranks with campaign contribution calling SKILLS to stick it to Mr. Forbes. A 100k or better large contribution from Steve would not only be $$$,$$$ in the bank... but would also come across as a huge endorsement.

presence