Judge Napolitano on Gary Johnson at Freedom Fest 2012

[HardyMacia]

Judge Napolitano on Gary Johnson at Freedom Fest 2012


http://vimeo.com/45765566

[BSU kid]

At least Nap knows whats up.

[Peace Piper]

Very unfortunate that it looks like Ron Paul won't even get a chance at an upset, according to him. If this changes by some miracle, I will walk across broken glass to vote for him.

And it's infuriating that his son stomped on some major enthusiasm. (one day hopefully we will know what really happened)

There is still a chance to expose people to something outside the conventional (R) (D) box and that is to get Gary Johnson into the debates. Even if you can't (or won't) support him, don't you think that it would be a good thing to Let Gary Debate?

Write in Ron Paul if you want. But let's get Gary into the debates.

It will only help in 2016 no matter the outcome. And no matter who you support.

If the choice this year is between Obama, Romney and Johnson which would you choose?

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-FlB4HNHBUI/0.jpg
garyjohnsongrassroots.com for the latest news

[rockandrollsouls]

I find it very funny those bashing Gary Johnson that sincerely respect Judge Nap won't even comment on this video. If we can't pull up an upset at the convention, damn sure my vote is going to GJ.

[PierzStyx]

I find it very funny those bashing Gary Johnson that sincerely respect Judge Nap won't even comment on this video. If we can't pull up an upset at the convention, damn sure my vote is going to GJ.

Well I'll respond. Just like the Judge said, Johnson is better than Obama and Romney when it comes to liberty. But, as I say, he is no Ron Paul.

Every person who is voting for Johnson instead of Paul for whatever reason, especially because Johnson has a "better chance of winning", are full of it. Every Paul supporter could vote for Johnson and that wouldn't be enough for him to win. So that isn't a good reason to vote for Johnson over Paul even as a write in. Now you do what you have to do, what you think is right. If you feel like voting for Johnson is the best thing, go right ahead. But I have some very pointed problems with his policies, and with the "Libertarian" Party in general. I'm going to vote for the man who I agree with 100%, who does have the best policies and the greatest dedication to liberty, Ron Paul. Even if my vote counts for nothing, I will have voted my conscience instead of compromising my principles for politics. I'm done voting for the lesser of the evils.

[EBounding]

I don't care for Johnson, plain and simple. But I do think people shouldn't have to settle when it comes to voting. So if Johnson's your guy, go for it. I don't think he'll be on the ballot in Michigan though.

[Indy Vidual]

^^^
LP was projecting ballot access in all 50 states this time.

[TheTexan]

Compared to Obama/Romney, GJ is better for sure. But he's still awful.

GJ is a disingenuous panderer, and his intent is to co-opt this movement away from libertarian principles, and towards "Libertarian" principles. He is not a libertarian. He is definitely a big L, which by itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, but he has no core principles which guide his decisions

[cheapseats]

Just like the Judge said, Johnson is better than Obama and Romney when it comes to liberty.

Bottom line.



But, as I say, he is no Ron Paul.

Who IS? Not Rand, certainly.




Every person who is voting for Johnson instead of Paul for whatever reason, especially because Johnson has a "better chance of winning", are full of it. Every Paul supporter could vote for Johnson and that wouldn't be enough for him to win. So that isn't a good reason to vote for Johnson over Paul even as a write in.

Baloney.

Votes for Gary Johnson will register as a NUMBER IN THE NEWS rather than as opinion in the Bubble.

Wrongly, unfairly, dishonorably, write-ins register BELOW the dreaded "distant last place" category.



Now you do what you have to do, what you think is right. If you feel like voting for Johnson is the best thing, go right ahead.

Exactly so. Free Will is a key component of Liberty.



But I have some very pointed problems with his policies, and with the "Libertarian" Party in general. I'm going to vote for the man who I agree with 100%, who does have the best policies and the greatest dedication to liberty, Ron Paul. Even if my vote counts for nothing, I will have voted my conscience instead of compromising my principles for politics. I'm done voting for the lesser of the evils.


Got you down for HARD NO.

Published statistics claim a board membership of over 40,000. I trust YOU do not consider a matter settled once YOUR mind is made up. So. Do you feel strongly enough AGAINST Gary Johnson or strongly enough about others casting (largely meaningless) write-in votes for Ron Paul to proactively campaign AGAINST Gary Johnson?

[rockandrollsouls]

I actually watched the video, and that's not what he said. He didn't say Johnson was better on one issue, he didn't say he was the best of the three. He said, straight as an arrow, GJ was a lover of liberty. And that's not something Judge Nap throws around lightly.

And just like that, the GJ haters are here to rephrase and diminish the meaning of Judge Naps ringing endorsement.

Why don't you read this and stop putting words in the judge's mouth? http://www.dailypaul.com/244579/judge-andrew-napolitano-praises-gary-johnson

I'm still absolutely dumbfounded how a Judge Nap, a man who has fought tooth and nail for liberty and done more than any of us here, says nothing but amazing things about GJ, yet it's still not good enough for some people here who haven't done a fraction of what these men have done.

I wouldn't care if it was GJ or another individual by a different name who was a liberty lover. What I'm trying to show here is there are trolls in the woodwork that will decry anyone trying to set them free if it's not RP.

GJ - good enough for the doctor and the judge. Not good enough for the ideologue. :rolleyes:


Well I'll respond. Just like the Judge said, Johnson is better than Obama and Romney when it comes to liberty. But, as I say, he is no Ron Paul.

Every person who is voting for Johnson instead of Paul for whatever reason, especially because Johnson has a "better chance of winning", are full of it. Every Paul supporter could vote for Johnson and that wouldn't be enough for him to win. So that isn't a good reason to vote for Johnson over Paul even as a write in. Now you do what you have to do, what you think is right. If you feel like voting for Johnson is the best thing, go right ahead. But I have some very pointed problems with his policies, and with the "Libertarian" Party in general. I'm going to vote for the man who I agree with 100%, who does have the best policies and the greatest dedication to liberty, Ron Paul. Even if my vote counts for nothing, I will have voted my conscience instead of compromising my principles for politics. I'm done voting for the lesser of the evils.

[PierzStyx]

Bottom line.

NOT AT ALL. Bottom line for me is who is right, not who is the least evil.


Who IS? Not Rand, certainly.


Who brought up Rand? But to answer your question of who is better, RON PAUL.


Baloney.

Votes for Gary Johnson will register as a NUMBER IN THE NEWS rather than as opinion in the Bubble.

Wrongly, unfairly, dishonorably, write-ins register BELOW the dreaded "distant last place" category.

Really? I've never seen the Libertarian Party even mentioned on election night or in any newspaper. I bet The Constitution Party gets more votes than Johnson, as it has for the past few years now over the LP. Johnson's name won't ever be mentioned. So why should I sacrifice my values and vote for him again?


Exactly so. Free Will is a key component of Liberty.


Yep.


Got you down for HARD NO.

Published statistics claim a board membership of over 40,000. I trust YOU do not consider a matter settled once YOUR mind is made up. So. Do you feel strongly enough AGAINST Gary Johnson or strongly enough about others casting (largely meaningless) write-in votes for Ron Paul to proactively campaign AGAINST Gary Johnson?

Meaningless? Perhaps to the media. But I will know for whom I have voted and that vote will be full of meaning. Do I feel strongly enough to campaign against Johnson for Paul write ins? Not really. Only when someone Johnson supporter comes along and tries to convince me I shouldn't vote my conscience. But when the question is raised, I will give my opinion. I do get it though if you want to vote for the lesser of evils.



My answers in bold.

[cheapseats]

Meaningless? Perhaps to the media.

To the fourth branch of government AND the two parties of the aptly named Two Party Stranglehold.




But I will know for whom I have voted and that vote will be full of meaning.

Your choice, your payoff.




Do I feel strongly enough to campaign against Johnson for Paul write ins? Not really.

Fantastico.

'Cuz the only groups I can think of that wouldn't want him in the debates are:

1.) International Elite
2.) Military Industrial Complex
3.) Government Workforce
4.) Freeloaders
5.) Abortion Hysterics
6.) Hardright Republicans
7.) Brokenhearted, resentful, retaliatory, loyal-to-a-fault Ron Paul Devotees




Only when someone Johnson supporter comes along and tries to convince me I shouldn't vote my conscience.

Got you down for HARD NO.

Not everything that is said, is said to YOU.




But when the question is raised, I will give my opinion. I do get it though if you want to vote for the lesser of evils.

In other words, you DO feel obliged to proactively campaign against him by continuing to insinuate your HARD NO into continued Gary Johnson 2012 discussion?

[PierzStyx]

GJ - good enough for the doctor and the judge. Not good enough for the ideologue. :rolleyes:

Why would I ever be anything else? Ideals are what matter, why should I sacrifice mine to vote for someone whom I think is the wrong candidate when there is a better choice? And if I did how would it be any better than voting for Romney? I mean if I'm going to vote for the guy better than Obama who has "a better chance to get elected" I might as well vote for the guy who has the most chance right?

[cheapseats]

Why would I ever be anything else? Ideals are what matter, why should I sacrifice mine to vote for someone whom I think is the wrong candidate when there is a better choice? And if I did how would it be any better than voting for Romney? I mean if I'm going to vote for the guy better than Obama who has "a better chance to get elected" I might as well vote for the guy who has the most chance right?


"The perfect is the enemy of the good." -- Voltaire

[PierzStyx]

To the fourth branch of government AND the two parties of the aptly named Two Party Stranglehold.


And those two parties are going to strangle Johnson right out. again, he will never be mentioned, he will not even get teh LP enough votes toc ome in third nationally. If this is your goal, then he will fail just as much as any write in vote.

Your choice, your payoff.


Yep.


Fantastico.

'Cuz the only groups I can think of that wouldn't want him in the debates are:

1.) International Elite
2.) Military Industrial Complex
3.) Government Workforce
4.) Freeloaders
5.) Abortion Hysterics
6.) Brokenhearted, resentful, retaliatory, loyal-to-a-fault Ron Paul Devotees


Hahaha. Johnson would support all those, just in lesser degrees than Romney or Obama.

Got you down for HARD NO.

Not everything that is said, is said to YOU.

This is a public forum. When you post something on here, it is posted for and to everyone. Including me. I find this comment funny though since I was responding to a comment that specifically called out people who like the Judge but don't support Johnson, people such as me, insinuating we were cowards for not commenting on the Judge's comments. So I did so. It is more like you are stick yourself into a conversation that does not include you.



In other words, you DO feel obliged to proactively campaign against him by continuing to insinuate your HARD NO into every Gary Johnson thread?

Nope. In fact I largely ignore Johnson threads.


In bold once more.

[cheapseats]

...In fact I largely ignore Johnson threads.


From your keyboard to God's ears.

There is PLENTY of work for NOBP's to do, getting as many Ron Paul Delegates and Ron Paul Die Hards as possible to Tampa.

[PierzStyx]

"The perfect is the enemy of the good." -- Voltaire

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” (John Quincy Adams, American 6th US President 1825-29, eldest son of John Adams, 2nd US president. 1767-1848)

[PierzStyx]

From your keyboard to God's ears.

There is PLENTY of work for NOBP's to do, getting as many Ron Paul Delegates and Ron Paul Die Hards as possible to Tampa.

Already bought my tickets and reserved a spot at the Sun Dome.

[cheapseats]

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” (John Quincy Adams, American 6th US President 1825-29, eldest son of John Adams, 2nd US president. 1767-1848)


Get this straight: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PERFECTIONISM LITE.

Anger is a red flag and a double-edged sword, HANDLE WITH CARE. The is NO upside to Perfectionism.

NOT YOU...you are down as ABSOLUTELY INFLEXIBLE HARD NO...but I will continue until November to encourage others to consider that MAKING THINGS HAPPEN rather than TALKING ABOUT making things happen IS its own Principle.

[PierzStyx]

Get this straight: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PERFECTIONISM LITE.

Anger is a red flag and a double-edged sword, HANDLE WITH CARE. The is NO upside to Perfectionism.

Who is angry? I'm not. That I am not voting for Johnson has nothing to do with perfection, or anger. I'm not voting for Johnson because I believe him to be a bad candidate. That the most convincing argument for him so far has been, "He may not be Ron Paul but he is better than Obama and Romney" illustrates this point very well I think. Its nothing but "anyone but Obamney." Which does nothing to convince me to vote for Johnson

If you're violating your principles by voting for someone then you are part of the problem

NOT YOU...you are down as ABSOLUTELY INFLEXIBLE HARD NO...but I will continue until November to encourage others to consider that MAKING THINGS HAPPEN rather than TALKING ABOUT making things happen IS its own Principle.

If voting for Johnson will help that you believe, then go for it. I'm not here to convince you to do otherwise. I wish you much success. But DO NOT assume you know a single damn thing about me and what I am doing to push the cause along. You do not. And to assume I am all talk and no action is an idiotic assumption to make an dit makes you sound like a self-righteous a-hole. That I am not doing the exact thing you are doesn't mean I am not working to push the cause forward, to introduce more people to liberty, to teach about how the current political machines produces slavery and what we can do to change it. And to get people out to fight against the Fedgov. Intelligence without action will accomplish nothing. Action without intelligence though, without know why you should fight, will never happen.





Answers once more in bold.

[cheapseats]

Who is angry? I'm not.

You SHOULD be.

Howard Beale, NETWORK: "All I know is that first you've got to get mad."

But that wasn't even my point. My point is that, dangerous as it is, Anger serves purposes. Perfectionism serves NONE.




...And to assume I am all talk and no action is an idiotic assumption to make an dit makes you sound like a self-righteous a-hole...

Ah, but it is YOU making an assumption about me making an assumption that I have, in point of fact, NOT made.




That I am not doing the exact thing you are doesn't mean I am not working to push the cause forward...

That's some irony right there, that's what THAT is.

Suffice it to say, I couldn't agree with you more.

[PierzStyx]

You SHOULD be.

Howard Beale, NETWORK: "All I know is that first you've got to get mad."

But that wasn't even my point. My point is that, dangerous as it is, Anger serves purposes. Perfectionism serves NONE.





Ah, but it is YOU making an assumption about me making an assumption that I have, in point of fact, NOT made.





That's some irony right there, that's what THAT is.

Suffice it to say, I couldn't agree with you more.


Are you sure you aren't a leftist? Your ability to take things out of context and to self-deceive would make it seem like you're a liberal.

[cheapseats]

Are you sure you aren't a leftist?

Quite sure.




...ability to take things out of context and to self-deceive...

Again, SUPER ironic coming from a Ron Paul Die Hard.

[cajuncocoa]

There is still a chance to expose people to something outside the conventional (R) (D) box and that is to get Gary Johnson into the debates. Even if you can't (or won't) support him, don't you think that it would be a good thing to Let Gary Debate?

Write in Ron Paul if you want. But let's get Gary into the debates.

Yes, definitely.

[rockandrollsouls]

We all have principles. Often the same principles. The difference is your faction dislikes anyone who isn't 100% Ron Paul. You have to align with someone on every single issue. I can align with someone if they are a constitutionalist, something GJ is.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing the "how is that different than voting for Romney" argument. It's different because Romney and Obama have or have proposed violating the Constitution in numerous ways. Gary has, and has promised to uphold his OATH. And that's where the divide is between where I stand and where you stand.

Me: Will support a constitutionalist, so long as they uphold their oath, respect the law of the land, even if I don't 100% agree with the approach to an issue.
You and ideologues: Have to align with someone on 100% every single issue. Can't distinguish between a constitutionalist and someone that violates their oath.

It's entirely a perception thing and it's the common libertarian problem. If it's not all at once...or a complete 180 degree reversal at one time it's never good enough for you. That's where most of the problem lies. You'll never reverse a policy or remove an institution all at once...but many of you here still seem to think that's possible.

I often wonder, if Ron had taken the "whittle the stone" approach early in his congressional career instead of 2 years before he retired his position, if we would ALREADY have had an audit of the fed. Ron has already seen more success with his recent, gradual approach in 2 years than he has in many more years prior to that where it was "all or nothing."

And the most important thing about that is it never came at the cost of compromising principle.


Why would I ever be anything else? Ideals are what matter, why should I sacrifice mine to vote for someone whom I think is the wrong candidate when there is a better choice? And if I did how would it be any better than voting for Romney? I mean if I'm going to vote for the guy better than Obama who has "a better chance to get elected" I might as well vote for the guy who has the most chance right?

[TheTexan]

You and ideologues: Have to align with someone on 100% every single issue.

Nope. Just one. Currency freedom.

[rockandrollsouls]

Yet the most conservative governor this nation has ever had, by record, who carries the ringing endorsement of Judge Nap and Ron before he entered the presidential race, is continuously talked down upon by you and others.

It is entirely uncalled for and counterproductive. God himself, the founding fathers, and Murray Rothbard could endorse GJ and it still wouldn't be enough for you.


Nope. Just one. Currency freedom.

[TheTexan]

God himself, the founding fathers, and Murray Rothbard could endorse GJ and it still wouldn't be enough for you.

You're right. I don't base my support on who endorsed who.

[rockandrollsouls]

No, you don't base it on record. :rolleyes:

The biggest allies of liberty support him, those that have been fighting along side us, yet he still doesn't pass your absurd "purity" test. It's like a child crying over getting the wrong flavor of ice cream. It's still delicious ice cream, yet you still throw fits.


You're right. I don't base my support on who endorsed who.

[TheTexan]

Considering that Gary Johnson doesn't even support sound money, he's not even shit-flavored ice cream. He's shit-flavored shit.

[Wren]

When will the GJ shills stop wasting their time? They're not going to build up GJ off the back of RP and his supporters. Probably a handful or more, but most of us already know that Johnson sucks balls.

[Nathan Hale]

When will the GJ shills stop wasting their time? They're not going to build up GJ off the back of RP and his supporters. Probably a handful or more, but most of us already know that Johnson sucks balls.

I like horsies.

Opinions are great, aren't they? Too bad yours has no greater standing in this movement than a GJ supporter's.

[CaptUSA]

Guys, don't think that if you don't support Gary Johnson for President, that you have to vilify him. He's on our side - even if you don't like the way he shows it.

Personally, I'm voting for Ron Paul. But I will hold no ill will for those that choose to vote for Gary.

I bet the PTB love to see threads like this where individuals in a individual liberty movement have voluntarily placed themselves into factions and have no problem throwing stones at the other side.

I see all of us working at this from differing flanks. While it can be highly advantageous to coalesce our forces for certain strategic battles, it makes absolutely no sense to fight amongst ourselves. "Join my side... No Join MY side... Your side's stupid... Your side is unreasonable..." Meanwhile, our real enemies are stealing our liberties.

[rockandrollsouls]

THIS!

Wren is exactly what's wrong with what this movement has become. I've been at this for decades and we were pumping GJ for governor before president and he did the job. Wren, where were you? What were you doing? Just like the neocons hijacked the republican party, the "new freedom movement" has hijacked the old. This didn't begin with Ron Paul. He became the figurehead for his extreme consistency in congress, but the liberty movement was never solely Ron Paul.

I would infer you are the shill for undermining the original liberty movement that sought to support all candidates supporting liberty.


Guys, don't think that if you don't support Gary Johnson for President, that you have to vilify him. He's on our side - even if you don't like the way he shows it.

Personally, I'm voting for Ron Paul. But I will hold no ill will for those that choose to vote for Gary.

I bet the PTB love to see threads like this where individuals in a individual liberty movement have voluntarily placed themselves into factions and have no problem throwing stones at the other side.

I see all of us working at this from differing flanks. While it can be highly advantageous to coalesce our forces for certain strategic battles, it makes absolutely no sense to fight amongst ourselves. "Join my side... No Join MY side... Your side's stupid... Your side is unreasonable..." Meanwhile, our real enemies are stealing our liberties.

[rockandrollsouls]

Pure bunk.

GJ has stated he would sign the bills if they came to his desk, but he's trying to get elected. Screaming "gold standard" doesn't get votes. You can spit ideology all you want, but it doesn't get jack done unless you get into office. GJ has also stated he supports abolishing the Fed. Numerous times.

The only difference between Ron and Gary is the approach. You simply continue to stick your fingers in your ears like a child because you don't want to acknowledge another candidate actually supports freedom and liberty. Example: Gary has stated numerous times he would end the Fed, has created a video ad stating the Fed should be ended, yet you continually say" GJ doesn't support ending the Fed," as in your signature. You're downright lying.

Again, I wouldn't care if the candidate was GJ, or Napolitano, or someone else who is a lover of liberty. I find it sickening, disgusting, appalling, and shameful the lengths you will go to splinter this liberty movement.

And I WILL remind you Ron endorsed third parties last election cycle FAR left of himself and GJ. Ron understands it's a matter of upholding the oath, honesty, and dismantling the banking cartel and military industrial complex. If Ron, Napolitano, GJ, and our other liberty candidates can all support each other, and THEY DO, I support any single one of them.

Proof you are a liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dZX12pH7CI



Considering that Gary Johnson doesn't even support sound money, he's not even shit-flavored ice cream. He's shit-flavored shit.

[Wren]

THIS!

Wren is exactly what's wrong with what this movement has become. I've been at this for decades and we were pumping GJ for governor before president and he did the job. Wren, where were you? What were you doing? Just like the neocons hijacked the republican party, the "new freedom movement" has hijacked the old. This didn't begin with Ron Paul. He became the figurehead for his extreme consistency in congress, but the liberty movement was never solely Ron Paul.

I would infer you are the shill for undermining the original liberty movement that sought to support all candidates supporting liberty.

I didn't come here for any movement; I came here for Ron Paul and the issues he campaigned on. I came here because I am sick of the bullshit. I'm not interested in joining any movement to blindly get behind whoever they spit forward. Rand Paul or Gary Johnson, whoever the 'movement' decides to get behind, I refuse to follow if I think they suck. And to be frank, Gary Johnson sucks. But who cares, I'm just one guy right? Well, look around. I'm not the only one who think GJ sucks.

I'll leave when this forum starts being "liberty forest" again, but right now it's about Ron Paul.

[kathy88]

I am NOBP. However I think getting Johnson in the debates would be a good thing. There are a lot of GOP mot satisfied with Romney. If GJ gets in the debates by some miracle they won't be able to completely take it out on us when Romney gets spanked.

[Working Poor]

I wish we would all decide what we want to do either write in Ron Paul or vote for Gary Johnson just so we can show our numbers. I know that not all states allow write ins as bad I I want to vote for Ron Paul maybe if we all voted for Gary Johnson at least we would have a good show of our numbers. I think we all know voting for Mittens is the same as voting for Obama.

[axiomata]

I get two votes. A vote for Johnson on paper and a vote for Paul in my heart.

[ssjevot]

My state doesn't count write-ins so the decision is already made. I have no qualms voting Libertarian the for my 3rd presidential election, it's what I did in the last two.

[Nathan Hale]

I didn't come here for any movement; I came here for Ron Paul and the issues he campaigned on. I came here because I am sick of the bullshit. I'm not interested in joining any movement to blindly get behind whoever they spit forward. Rand Paul or Gary Johnson, whoever the 'movement' decides to get behind, I refuse to follow if I think they suck. And to be frank, Gary Johnson sucks. But who cares, I'm just one guy right? Well, look around. I'm not the only one who think GJ sucks.

I'll leave when this forum starts being "liberty forest" again, but right now it's about Ron Paul.

Nobody's asking you to lockstep with "the movement" - but respect that in order for anything to ever happen politically (which is required in order to change the bullshit that you are so sick of), people need to compromise between themselves in order to elect like-minded candidates to office. That's what "the movement" is. Perhaps Gary isn't your cup of tea - but respect that while many in this movement don't like him, many in this movement DO like him. And since there isn't an alternative, why don't you let those who like him gather in peace.

[Nathan Hale]

Wren is exactly what's wrong with what this movement has become. I've been at this for decades and we were pumping GJ for governor before president and he did the job. Wren, where were you? What were you doing? Just like the neocons hijacked the republican party, the "new freedom movement" has hijacked the old. This didn't begin with Ron Paul. He became the figurehead for his extreme consistency in congress, but the liberty movement was never solely Ron Paul.


THIS! Libertarianism wasn't born in 2007. If you got in a time machine and told a libertarian in 2003 that in 2012 supporters of Gary Johnson and supporters of Ron Paul would be in a flame war with each other over who was the better Presidential candidate, they'd laugh you out of the room....that is, if they didn't die of shock upon hearing that two longtime libertarian celebrities were major players in the 2012 election.

[Nathan Hale]

I am NOBP. However I think getting Johnson in the debates would be a good thing. There are a lot of GOP mot satisfied with Romney. If GJ gets in the debates by some miracle they won't be able to completely take it out on us when Romney gets spanked.

NOBP is cool - just do us a favor and say "Gary Johnson" if you get polled, so he can get in the debates.

[Wren]

Nobody's asking you to lockstep with "the movement" - but respect that in order for anything to ever happen politically (which is required in order to change the bullshit that you are so sick of), people need to compromise between themselves in order to elect like-minded candidates to office. That's what "the movement" is. Perhaps Gary isn't your cup of tea - but respect that while many in this movement don't like him, many in this movement DO like him. And since there isn't an alternative, why don't you let those who like him gather in peace.

As long as these remain the "ron paul forums" I will continue to voice my opposition to Gary and people like you who dare insult those who wish to write in Ron Paul instead. Take it to your Gary Johnson forums if you want to have peace.

[TheTexan]

THIS! Libertarianism wasn't born in 2007.

Can you show me a libertarian in major office before 2007 other than Ron Paul? And by libertarian, I mean the principles, not the party.

[jmdrake]

I sincerely hope once Tampa is done Ron Paul will endorse Gary Johnson and the senseless infighting will cease. Then again when Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin that didn't really slow down the infighting any. :(

[TheTexan]

I sincerely hope once Tampa is done Ron Paul will endorse Gary Johnson and the senseless infighting will cease. Then again when Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin that didn't really slow down the infighting any. :(

Some of it really can't be called infighting. Many of the big-L fanatics here have latched on to this movement but don't actually understand the core principles. That's called co-opting, not infighting.

[jmdrake]

As long as these remain the "ron paul forums" I will continue to voice my opposition to Gary and people like you who dare insult those who wish to write in Ron Paul instead. Take it to your Gary Johnson forums if you want to have peace.

So when Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin in 2008 did you voice your opposition to Baldwin just because the name of this place was still "RonPaulForums"? And Nathan Hale didn't insult you or anyone else who wants to write in Ron Paul. Quit making this needlessly into an "us versus them" thing.

[TheTexan]

Quit making this needlessly into an "us versus them" thing.

It is what it is. I call it like I see it.

[jmdrake]

Some of it really can't be called infighting. Many of the big-L fanatics here have latched on to this movement but don't actually understand the core principles. That's called co-opting, not infighting.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not a "big-L fanatic". In 2008 I went with constitutional party candidate Chuck Baldwin. I did not write in Ron Paul. And while Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin, even he had just kept silent I would have come to the same decision. It's not about being against core principles. It's realizing that when I watch the returns on election night I know write in votes won't even be mentioned. Ron could get 1 million write ins and it won't matter. This isn't about Gary Johnson getting elected. I know that's not possible. This isn't "voting for the lesser of two (or three) evils" as some falsely claim. For me it's simply about making sure that nobody can mistake my non vote for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama as me being "lazy" or "apathetic" or any of the myriad other reasons that some people simply don't go out and vote and wouldn't go out and vote even if Ron Paul was actually on the ballot. For those who see this differently, fine. I can respect that. I wish the respect just went both ways.

[jmdrake]

It is what it is. I call it like I see it.

Then please get some new glasses.

[TheTexan]

Speaking only for myself, I'm not a "big-L fanatic". In 2008 I went with constitutional party candidate Chuck Baldwin. I did not write in Ron Paul. And while Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin, even he had just kept silent I would have come to the same decision. It's not about being against core principles. It's realizing that when I watch the returns on election night I know write in votes won't even be mentioned. Ron could get 1 million write ins and it won't matter. This isn't about Gary Johnson getting elected. I know that's not possible. This isn't "voting for the lesser of two (or three) evils" as some falsely claim. For me it's simply about making sure that nobody can mistake my non vote for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama as me being "lazy" or "apathetic" or any of the myriad other reasons that some people simply don't go out and vote and wouldn't go out and vote even if Ron Paul was actually on the ballot. For those who see this differently, fine. I can respect that. I wish the respect just went both ways.

That's a rational reason for voting for Johnson, and I'm fine with that. It's the people who put Johnson on Ron's pedestal, and compare them as equals, that gets on my nerves. Those people either don't get it, and should just leave, or are being flat out dishonest.

[TheTexan]

Then please get some new glasses.

I hate to break it to you, but this whole movement is "us vs them." If you think it's anything else, you're still living in a dream land.

[Wren]

So when Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin in 2008 did you voice your opposition to Baldwin just because the name of this place was still "RonPaulForums"? And Nathan Hale didn't insult you or anyone else who wants to write in Ron Paul. Quit making this needlessly into an "us versus them" thing.

I wasnt even here in 2008, so baldwin is irrelevant. I dont vote based on who Ron Paul decides to endorse, but if Ron Paul endorsed a candidate, and since these are the RON PAUL forums, that candidate should be allowed to be discussed. RP did not endorse GJ; hence why he's an opposing candidate. Nathan likes to actively campaign here for Johnson and calls people who write in Ron Paul "morons"

[jmdrake]

That's a rational reason for voting for Johnson, and I'm fine with that. It's the people who put Johnson on Ron's pedestal, and compare them as equals, that gets on my nerves. Those people either don't get it, and should just leave, or are being flat out dishonest.

I haven't seen that, but I haven't read every post at RPF either. FTR I was in the "Gary Johnson can't win" camp before he or Ron announced they would run for president due to GJ's position on abortion. (I disagree with it. But beyond that you can't win a GOP primary with it).


I hate to break it to you, but this whole movement is "us vs them." If you think it's anything else, you're still living in a dream land.

Except for when some of us get mistaken for some of them and get shot with friendly fire. I've been part of us long enough to see that happen.

[jmdrake]

I wasnt even here in 2008, so baldwin is irrelevant. I dont vote based on who Ron Paul decides to endorse, but if Ron Paul endorsed a candidate, and since these are the RON PAUL forums, that candidate should be allowed to be discussed. RP did not endorse GJ; hence why he's an opposing candidate. Nathan likes to actively campaign here for Johnson and calls people who write in Ron Paul "morons"

Movement history is relevant whether you were here for it or not. And while I don't expect you to vote for someone based on who Ron Paul endorses, I think civility isn't too much to ask. Further prior to Ron Paul endorsing Chuck Baldwin, he did what's known as his "joint endorsement" of Baldwin, Nader and McKinney. (Bob Barr was invited to that conference but declined because Bob is a douche). Thus Ron Paul endorsed the concept of people voting for third party candidates that might not be 100% in line with Ron Paul as a way to register a protest vote. Now again, you don't have to agree to that, but civility to the concept is warranted. Further Nathan hasn't called anyone "moron" in this thread. I'm not saying he didn't in other threads, but I'd have to see the context. Some in the "Ron Paul write in" crowd have indeed been morons for the way they treat others who are simply following a strategy Ron Paul laid out in 2008.

[rockandrollsouls]

I like how you conveniently ignored my evidence showing you lie like a dog. I guess you can't refute GJ supporting sound money when it comes straight from his mouth :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'll first begin by reminding you Ron is a conservative, not a libertarian. His approach to nearly all things is more conservative than libertarian. Secondly, what office are we talking about here? Congress? Presidencies? What? I'd argue Ron was in the right place at the right time...the country was fed up with Bush and what republicans had become, and here's a figure in the national debates talking about something drastically different by seriously wanting to end the war and going back to fiscal responsibility. He was the only bread-and butter conservative running for the highest office in a while, so why wouldn't those of us disaffected from our own party support him? I'll say it again, Ron certainly didn't spawn libertarianism or traditional conservatism, but he was able to bring it to a larger audience with the timing of his 2008 presidential run. There's a reason.

But I will argue some strong conservatives in office were GJ and Mark Sanford in recent years and there were many before and at the same time as Ron as well. Ron has always been the most outspoken, the most polarizing, and in many ways it has both help and hurt him, but he never WAS libertarianism/conservatism. That was US. Those who voted these candidates into office, those who contributed to them, and those of you that latched onto the guys we put into the limelight. Yes, that's what I said. Ron's been in office for many, many years. And only recently have people, like Wren who has admitted this a couple of pages back, found Ron and come here.


Can you show me a libertarian in major office before 2007 other than Ron Paul? And by libertarian, I mean the principles, not the party.

[rockandrollsouls]

Yep. I can't believe how many people have forgotten Ron has endorsed candidates so far to the left of him, simply because he understands the military industrial complex and the banking cartel must be the first to go before we have any real change, and that's where we can align with others.

But then again, wren and bxm weren't even here in 2007/2008 :rolleyes:


Movement history is relevant whether you were here for it or not. And while I don't expect you to vote for someone based on who Ron Paul endorses, I think civility isn't too much to ask. Further prior to Ron Paul endorsing Chuck Baldwin, he did what's known as his "joint endorsement" of Baldwin, Nader and McKinney. (Bob Barr was invited to that conference but declined because Bob is a douche). Thus Ron Paul endorsed the concept of people voting for third party candidates that might not be 100% in line with Ron Paul as a way to register a protest vote. Now again, you don't have to agree to that, but civility to the concept is warranted. Further Nathan hasn't called anyone "moron" in this thread. I'm not saying he didn't in other threads, but I'd have to see the context. Some in the "Ron Paul write in" crowd have indeed been morons for the way they treat others who are simply following a strategy Ron Paul laid out in 2008.

[TheTexan]

I like how you conveniently ignored my evidence showing you lie like a dog.

Hmm... k? No idea what you're talking about


I guess you can't refute GJ supporting sound money when it comes straight from his mouth

I already have (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?382566-Embarrassing-Gary-Johnson-Political-Ad&p=4535175&viewfull=1#post4535175). GJ said in no uncertain terms that he blames the failure of Bretton Woods on the fact that the currency was a "gold standard."

If I have to spell out to you how that means GJ does NOT support sound money... then, fuck, man, go read a book or something.


Anyway, I'll first begin by reminding you Ron is a conservative, not a libertarian. His approach to nearly all things is more conservative than libertarian.

Haha. No. This is how I know you're full of shit. You can't tell the difference.

[rockandrollsouls]

Keep lying, buddy. Anyone here can watch the video link I posted where Gary says he would sign any legislation supporting sound money, INCLUDING competing currencies, and also states he understands why we should have commodity money and how our dollar has been devalued due to the current system.

You simply have an axe to grind. You've gone at it with members here who have been well established supporters of RP and liberty, including myself, NathanHale, and Anaconda. Most of everything you've posted has been railing against GJ. Please show me one piece of something where he's said he doesn't support sound money, because that video is just one of money that proves he does, and also supports ending the fed.

Bloody sick of you and the "new trolls" coming out and hijacking this movement. I was emptying my pockets for Paul and the liberty movement decades ago before you joined this board. And maybe even before you were born. What have you done aside from bashing other candidates on this board? I'd really love to know.



Hmm... k? No idea what you're talking about



I already have (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?382566-Embarrassing-Gary-Johnson-Political-Ad&p=4535175&viewfull=1#post4535175). GJ said in no uncertain terms that he blames the failure of Bretton Woods on the fact that the currency was a "gold standard."

If I have to spell out to you how that means GJ does NOT support sound money... then, fuck, man, go read a book or something.



Haha. No. This is how I know you're full of shit. You can't tell the difference.

[TheTexan]

Keep lying, buddy. Anyone here can watch the video link I posted where Gary says he would sign any legislation supporting sound money, INCLUDING competing currencies, and also states he understands why we should have commodity money and how our dollar has been devalued due to the current system.

You simply have an axe to grind. You've gone at it with members here who have been well established supporters of RP and liberty, including myself, NathanHale, and Anaconda. Most of everything you've posted has been railing against GJ. Please show me one piece of something where he's said he doesn't support sound money, because that video is just one of money that proves he does, and also supports ending the fed.

Bloody sick of you and the "new trolls" coming out and hijacking this movement. I was emptying my pockets for Paul and the liberty movement decades ago before you joined this board. And maybe even before you were born. What have you done aside from bashing other candidates on this board? I'd really love to know.

Gary Johnson doesn't think the gold standard is a good idea. Period. The fact that he said "he would sign it" doesn't mean shit if he doesn't think its a good idea. That's basically the definition of pandering.

If calling a politician on his pandering bullshit, and calling supporters of his out for supporting pandering bullshit, if that's "an axe to grind", then yes, I have an axe to grind.

[rockandrollsouls]

That's you fabricating lies based on your bias. Gary has consistently said the contrary. We have video and audio for it. You just keep lying and pushing your agenda :rolleyes:

I don't mind, and in fact, welcome real debate and analysis of a candidate's positions. But GJ has been constant in his response to this unwarranted critique. Just cut it out already....


Gary Johnson doesn't think the gold standard is a good idea. Period. The fact that he said "he would sign it" doesn't mean shit if he doesn't think its a good idea. That's basically the definition of pandering.

If calling a politician on his pandering bullshit, and calling supporters of his out for supporting pandering bullshit, if that's "an axe to grind", then yes, I have an axe to grind.

[TheTexan]

That's you fabricating lies based on your bias. Gary has consistently said the contrary. We have video and audio for it. You just keep lying and pushing your agenda :rolleyes:

I don't mind, and in fact, welcome real debate and analysis of a candidate's positions. But GJ has been constant in his response to this unwarranted critique. Just cut it out already....




(Responding to the question: "should we go back to the gold standard?") You know, that's not the end-all. I like the notion of a gold standard, but historically speaking that had a lot of problems with it. Now, it sounds great, but.. so my understanding is that we went off the gold standard as a result of De Gaulle demanding that his US currency be exchanged for gold. Well that was impractical.

That's all the proof I need, rockandrolltrolls.

You can post all the videos you want of people asking "Gary Johnson, I think [x] is great. Do you support [x]?" GJ: "... uh... sure... now back to the other thing."

[TheTexan]

Gary Johnson is to libertarianism what Sarah Palin is to conservatism.

[rockandrollsouls]

What is wrong with anything he said in that quote? Just more proof you like reading between the lines to support your fabricated scenarios.

The gold standard DID have a lot of problems in the way it was handled and implemented, everything from the straight commodity currency, to the certificates tied directly to the commodity, to the certificates being counterfeited and printed, to Bretton Woods..... historically speaking, it's a FACT it had a lot of problems with it. That's not to say the GOLD STANDARD itself is bad, but the way it was handled was certainly awful.

And Gary HAS come out in support of legalizing competing currencies and ending fractional reserve banking. Arguably, fractional reserve banking is the BIGGER issue than going back to a commodity currency, as it's counterfeiting in it's purest form...

Long story short, you're simply reading between the lines and relying on semantics to bash another liberty lover. Pretty disgraceful and tasteless. Like I've said in the past, if Gary had actually said "the gold standard is a bad idea. We need fiat money and fractional reserve banking. etc etc" I'd say, "you know what, you have a point. that's not something we support." But that's just not the case.

Lying and fabrication. Something you've been doing since you joined the forums.


That's all the proof I need, rockandrolltrolls.

You can post all the videos you want of people asking "Gary Johnson, I think [x] is great. Do you support [x]?" GJ: "... uh... sure... now back to the other thing."

[TheTexan]

What is wrong with anything he said in that quote? Just more proof you like reading between the lines to support your fabricated scenarios.

See my post in the other thread... I linked to it earlier. The fact that you ask this question speaks volumes about *your* lack of understanding of the topic. When you yourself don't understand the Fed, the significance of the problems it causes, and how it can (and can't) be resolved... it actually makes a lot of sense that you'd like Gary Johnson so much.


The gold standard DID have a lot of problems in the way it was handled and implemented, everything from the straight commodity currency, to the certificates tied directly to the commodity, to the certificates being counterfeited and printed, to Bretton Woods..... historically speaking, it's a FACT it had a lot of problems with it. That's not to say the GOLD STANDARD itself is bad, but the way it was handled was certainly awful.

Bretton Woods wasn't a gold standard. It was fiat currency barely linked to gold. OF COURSE that is going to have problems. He pointed to the failures of Bretton Woods, and used those as examples of why we shouldn't return to the gold standard. Whether he knows this or not, by making such a statement, he took the side of fiat currency over hard currency. Which is treason in my eyes.

You have to admit, though, that using the phrase "Now, it sounds great, but..." is a classic dodge for when you don't support something but don't want to offend anybody. If you can't admit that, YOU are a liar.


And Gary HAS come out in support of legalizing competing currencies and ending fractional reserve banking.

Not really, no. He will pander in a "yes" to those issues occassionally, and he'll also pander in throwing those keywords in a sentence, but he has never expounded upon them in any detail. And when he does mention them, for the brief few seconds that he does, you can tell by his facial expressions that he doesn't care about them.

And then after he (very briefly) mentions those keywords, he'll look confused for a few seconds, maybe get lost and forget what he was saying, and then he'll usually regain his train of thought with the phrase "strong US dollar, weak US dollar". He LOVES that phrase. He'll use it even where it doesn't fit. Like with competing currencies. The point of competing currencies obviously isn't to get a strong US dollar, but that doesn't stop him from using the phrase in that context.

Basically, he'll say things like "if it gets to my desk, I'll sign it", "would I sign it? yes", but at the same time he very, very often demonstrates ZERO understanding of the subject itself. You can't "support" something if you don't know why you're supporting it.


Arguably, fractional reserve banking is the BIGGER issue than going back to a commodity currency, as it's counterfeiting in it's purest form...

No, not in the slightest. Fractional reserve banking is a derivative problem. Lack of hard currency is the root problem.


Long story short, you're simply reading between the lines

Yes, I am. Lots of politicians will say they support something, without actually meaning it. That's called pandering. And Gary Johnson is a PROFESSIONAL at this.

When you understand the problem - which you don't - it becomes very easy to figure out who actually supports it, and who just says they support it. The issue of the Federal Reserve isn't particularly complex. There are complexities to it, but at the heart of it is a very simple concept: It's theft, on a global scale. Plain and simple. People who understand that, it's very easy to see. When they speak on the subject, even if rarely, it's done with passion.

Gary Johnson does not have that passion. He speaks on the subject rarely. When he does, it's very brief. Also when he does rarely go into any amount of detail, he gets it all wrong. He doesn't understand the issue. How can someone support an issue they don't understand?


Like I've said in the past, if Gary had actually said "the gold standard is a bad idea. We need fiat money and fractional reserve banking. etc etc" I'd say, "you know what, you have a point. that's not something we support." But that's just not the case.

He's not going to say that. He's a panderer. Panderers don't give straight answers, so you have to read between the lines.


Lying and fabrication. Something you've been doing since you joined the forums.

Since I've joined the forum? You're apparently pretty good at lying and fabricating, yourself.

[Nathan Hale]

As long as these remain the "ron paul forums" I will continue to voice my opposition to Gary and people like you who dare insult those who wish to write in Ron Paul instead.

I don't recall insulting people who wish to write in Ron Paul. I've argued against the strategy of write-in voting, but that was long ago. I've long since given up on trying to speak strategy to that sentiment.


Take it to your Gary Johnson forums if you want to have peace.

I don't need to, because I and a great number of Paul fans are also fans of Gary Johnson - your individual disagreement with that is your problem. Just as we discussed other liberty presidential options after Paul no longer stood a chance in 2008, we do so again today. If you want to rail against that, it's your prerogative, I just think its a dick move.

[Nathan Hale]

Can you show me a libertarian in major office before 2007 other than Ron Paul? And by libertarian, I mean the principles, not the party.

Stop right there and put down the straw man. You were replying to this quote: "libertarianism wasn't born in 2007", and that quote stands. I've been fighting the libertarian fight for almost 20 years.

To your point, the LP and the Advocates for Self-Government always referenced a (short) list of libertarian Congressmen and Governors when they wanted to point out their libertarian celebrities. Ron Paul was there, as were others.

[Revolution9]

Yes, definitely.

I wanna see uim debate too. I think it will paint out quite brightly who he is.

Rev9

[TheTexan]

Ron Paul was there, as were others.

What others? And if you say "Gary Johnson" you may as well not answer at all. He is indisputably big L only

[Nathan Hale]

What others? And if you say "Gary Johnson" you may as well not answer at all. He is indisputably big L only

I'm not getting into it, because I don't want to get into some nit-picky Randroid ancap tip-of-the-diamond-only-please "debate" over who is and is not libertarian (despite the fact that the list was made by the LP and the Advocates who were both very extremist in their views). And yes, Gary was on it....among others.

[TheTexan]

(despite the fact that the list was made by the LP and the Advocates who were both very extremist in their views).

The LP? As in Libertarian Party? I sincerely hope you mean some other organization, or you're joking. Because if your baseline of "libertarianism" is anyone the LP puts on their list... you *completely* missed the point of "Big L" versus "little l".

[rockandrollsouls]

I've been posting and correctly predicting economic related issues and outcomes since I joined this forum. I've been right 100% on all of my predictions, and considering I have a strong background in economics and I use it daily in my career, I think you lecturing me (again, based on semantics) is laughable.

1. I never said Bretton Woods was a gold standard. If you actually read my post, I briefly outlined how the gold standard "evolved." It was problematic in the way it was handled and ended up completely bastardized in the form of Bretton Woods. Go back and read before you make baseless claims.
2. Fractional reserve banking is the problem. Theoretically, a nation could maintain fiat money with extreme stability so long as fractional reserve banking was not present. I will clarify, once again, I'm not in favor of that (since you love to twist my words.) However, Fractional Reserve Banking is the problem; Ron himself has stated this. The chief reason for returning to a true gold standard is you can't counterfeit a commodity, ie, it destroys fractional reserve banking by its very nature.
3. Gary Johnson has repeatedly made his support for sound money clear. You seem to be the only one "reading between the lines," and no one armed with any amount of knowledge can argue with someone so stubborn. It's like me saying "That car turned left. I saw it turn left, the driver said he turned left, we all saw it turn left." And you are the party that denies it no matter how much evidence there is. You believe what you believe, despite there being mountains of evidence (video, audio, his record) to the contrary. :rolleyes:

Basic psychology and a flawed system....if he doesn't do exactly what you deem appropriate, it's considered an admission of guilt on your behalf. IE, GJ isn't campaigning for sound money hard enough, therefore, he must be against it! Gary Johnson doesn't talk about the gold standard incessantly, therefore, he doesn't support it! Gary Johnson says things I agree with but he doesn't lecture as to why. Therefore, he must be a panderer!! :rolleyes: We all know this is complete and total bunk, but it's humorous to see you've resorted to the logic of a 12 year old. There are so many things wrong with your reasoning here, I can't even get into all of them. But in summary, GJ is running for office. He's trying to win votes. Lecturing crowds like a professor doesn't win votes. I can show you the the charts of Ron's public opinion tanking during debates when he did this if you want.

It might satisfy your ego, but the average person doesn't even know we have fiat money. If you can bring someone up to speed in 30 seconds of a debate response, I'd LOVE to see it.


See my post in the other thread... I linked to it earlier. The fact that you ask this question speaks volumes about *your* lack of understanding of the topic. When you yourself don't understand the Fed, the significance of the problems it causes, and how it can (and can't) be resolved... it actually makes a lot of sense that you'd like Gary Johnson so much.



Bretton Woods wasn't a gold standard. It was fiat currency barely linked to gold. OF COURSE that is going to have problems. He pointed to the failures of Bretton Woods, and used those as examples of why we shouldn't return to the gold standard. Whether he knows this or not, by making such a statement, he took the side of fiat currency over hard currency. Which is treason in my eyes.

You have to admit, though, that using the phrase "Now, it sounds great, but..." is a classic dodge for when you don't support something but don't want to offend anybody. If you can't admit that, YOU are a liar.



Not really, no. He will pander in a "yes" to those issues occassionally, and he'll also pander in throwing those keywords in a sentence, but he has never expounded upon them in any detail. And when he does mention them, for the brief few seconds that he does, you can tell by his facial expressions that he doesn't care about them.

And then after he (very briefly) mentions those keywords, he'll look confused for a few seconds, maybe get lost and forget what he was saying, and then he'll usually regain his train of thought with the phrase "strong US dollar, weak US dollar". He LOVES that phrase. He'll use it even where it doesn't fit. Like with competing currencies. The point of competing currencies obviously isn't to get a strong US dollar, but that doesn't stop him from using the phrase in that context.

Basically, he'll say things like "if it gets to my desk, I'll sign it", "would I sign it? yes", but at the same time he very, very often demonstrates ZERO understanding of the subject itself. You can't "support" something if you don't know why you're supporting it.



No, not in the slightest. Fractional reserve banking is a derivative problem. Lack of hard currency is the root problem.



Yes, I am. Lots of politicians will say they support something, without actually meaning it. That's called pandering. And Gary Johnson is a PROFESSIONAL at this.

When you understand the problem - which you don't - it becomes very easy to figure out who actually supports it, and who just says they support it. The issue of the Federal Reserve isn't particularly complex. There are complexities to it, but at the heart of it is a very simple concept: It's theft, on a global scale. Plain and simple. People who understand that, it's very easy to see. When they speak on the subject, even if rarely, it's done with passion.

Gary Johnson does not have that passion. He speaks on the subject rarely. When he does, it's very brief. Also when he does rarely go into any amount of detail, he gets it all wrong. He doesn't understand the issue. How can someone support an issue they don't understand?



He's not going to say that. He's a panderer. Panderers don't give straight answers, so you have to read between the lines.



Since I've joined the forum? You're apparently pretty good at lying and fabricating, yourself.

[TheTexan]

I've been posting and correctly predicting economic related issues and outcomes since I joined this forum. I've been right 100% on all of my predictions, and considering I have a strong background in economics and I use it daily in my career, I think you lecturing me (again, based on semantics) is laughable.

Funny thing is, there's plenty of Keynesians who say the same thing.


1. I never said Bretton Woods was a gold standard.... Go back and read before you make baseless claims.

I never said you did. Gary Johnson did.


Fractional reserve banking...

There's a whole another thread for that debate. FRB is a problem, but it's not the problem.



Basic psychology and a flawed system....if he doesn't do exactly what you deem appropriate, it's considered an admission of guilt on your behalf. IE, GJ isn't campaigning for sound money hard enough, therefore, he must be against it! Gary Johnson doesn't talk about the gold standard incessantly, therefore, he doesn't support it! Gary Johnson says things I agree with but he doesn't lecture as to why. Therefore, he must be a panderer!! :rolleyes: We all know this is complete and total bunk, but it's humorous to see you've resorted to the logic of a 12 year old. There are so many things wrong with your reasoning here, I can't even get into all of them. But in summary, GJ is running for office. He's trying to win votes. Lecturing crowds like a professor doesn't win votes. I can show you the the charts of Ron's public opinion tanking during debates when he did this if you want.

My argument isn't that "he's not campaigning hard enough for it." If you'd actually read what I write, you'd realize my argument is he doesn't understand it. The fact that he doesn't ever mention the subject is simply a by-product of that.

Even when people ask him to go into detail on the subject he does not. He doesn't avoid the subject like the plague because he doesn't want to appear didactic. It's because he has no clue what he's talking about. He simply repeats keywords and phrases that he very likely has memorized from flash cards.

The simple fact of the matter is, Gary Johnson doesn't know shit about the economy. He "supports" this, and he "supports" that, but when he goes into any amount of detail... he gets everything wrong. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that he has no idea what he's talking about. Obvious to everyone except apparently card-carrying Libertarian Party fanatics. Your counterpoints on this subject amounts to nothing more than out-right denials, in the style of Herman Cain himself.

You can continue denying it all you like. I'll continue calling you out on it all I like. It's clear we will never reach any agreement, but that's fine with me.

At best, you're a blind sycophant being led by a man with a silver tongue. At worse, you're an outright liar who is twisting and contorting the truth into something its not to try to manipulate this movement.

[Nathan Hale]

The LP? As in Libertarian Party? I sincerely hope you mean some other organization, or you're joking. Because if your baseline of "libertarianism" is anyone the LP puts on their list... you *completely* missed the point of "Big L" versus "little l".

If you're about make the argument that the LP circa early Bush years was a moderate organization I'm going to limit my involvement in this conversation to laughing at you and walking away.

[TheTexan]

If you're about make the argument that the LP circa early Bush years was a moderate organization I'm going to limit my involvement in this conversation to laughing at you and walking away.

The LP has had bright spots along its path, but a few bright spots does not an entire party make. I'm sure the Republican Party appeared conservative in its goldwater years. Hint: it wasn't.

If you were to have said Harry Browne is a libertarian... I'd agree with that. But to say the party itself is libertarian... no sir, I don't agree with that at all. And the proof are the candidates that have followed since. Barr? Johnson? Seriously?

[Feeding the Abscess]

If you're about make the argument that the LP circa early Bush years was a moderate organization I'm going to limit my involvement in this conversation to laughing at you and walking away.

It's pretty indisputable that the LP sold out by 2006, though.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/lp-turkish-delight.html

[rockandrollsouls]

The LP was attempting to recruit Johnson before it "sold out."

Anyway, this post is just further proof you're unsatisfied unless everything passes your near impossible purity test. :rolleyes:


The LP has had bright spots along its path, but a few bright spots does not an entire party make. I'm sure the Republican Party appeared conservative in its goldwater years. Hint: it wasn't.

If you were to have said Harry Browne is a libertarian... I'd agree with that. But to say the party itself is libertarian... no sir, I don't agree with that at all. And the proof are the candidates that have followed since. Barr? Johnson? Seriously?

[TheTexan]

The LP was attempting to recruit Johnson before it "sold out."

Anyway, this post is just further proof you're unsatisfied unless everything passes your near impossible purity test. :rolleyes:

Near impossible? No... this is all I require...


(Q: What’s your opinion of the Federal Reserve system?)
A: There is no constitutional authority for a national bank. I’d push Congress to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and return to a pure gold standard, where you would no longer worry about politicians setting interest rates and such.

This, on the other hand... is not

I like the notion of a gold standard, but historically speaking that had a lot of problems with it. Now, it sounds great, but..

I like the notion of Gary Johnson, but historically speaking, there's a lot of problems with him. Now, he sounds great, but... my understanding is that he thinks the gold standard had a lot of problems with it. That's impractical.

[misean]

I like the notion of Gary Johnson, but historically speaking, there's a lot of problems with him. Now, he sounds great, but... my understanding is that he thinks the gold standard had a lot of problems with it. That's impractical.

Harry Browne never won an election that I know of. Being good on issues is only part of the equation to what makes a good candidate and it's actually a pretty small piece of the puzzle. Being able to sell a message, raise money, and actually implement a message through a legislature are much more important. Checking off all the ideological boxes almost doesn't matter in comparison.

A gold standard does have a lot of problems with it. Nobody who understands it thinks otherwise.

The fact of the matter is Gary Johnson is probably the most credible third party candidate in most people's lifetimes. He's far from perfect but when you grade him on a curve he gets an A.

[TheTexan]

Harry Browne never won an election that I know of.

It's this idiotic mindset that got us to where we are today. Winning > principles.


A gold standard does have a lot of problems with it. Nobody who understands it thinks otherwise.

No, it doesn't. The only problem with the gold standard is that politicians will be tempted to leave the gold standard. Competing currencies, fyi, solves that problem.


The fact of the matter is Gary Johnson is probably the most credible third party candidate in most people's lifetimes. He's far from perfect but when you grade him on a curve he gets an A.

I don't grade on a curve. If you fail the test, you fail the test. Regardless if everyone else in your class is an idiot too.

[rockandrollsouls]

Last I checked, you were a nobody with an opinion that didn't matter. What qualifies you to be the final judge of libertarian standards?

In summary, Napolitano and Ron Paul himself have openly supported Gary (Ron before he threw his own hat into the ring.) If the man we consider "pure" has supported GJ, what is your gripe with supporting him if Ron does not get the republican nod?


It's this idiotic mindset that got us to where we are today. Winning > principles.



No, it doesn't. The only problem with the gold standard is that politicians will be tempted to leave the gold standard. Competing currencies, fyi, solves that problem.



I don't grade on a curve. If you fail the test, you fail the test. Regardless if everyone else in your class is an idiot too.

[rockandrollsouls]

FYI, Gary supports competing currencies. But aside from that fact, competing currencies does NOT solve that problem. I've laid into Travylr on this point, and now I will with you since you don't seem to comprehend the basics. If competing currencies are legalized, in what way does that stop fractional reserve banking and what is stopping the rest of the world from using dollars, or moving away from the dollar as a reserve currency? The industry blood-suckers that could only thrive through fiat money, (ie the bankers and military industrial complex) still have an ironclad grip over fiat money and would still have the ability to use it.

So under your dream scenario, what changes?

I'll give you the answer right now; nothing changes in the bigger picture. But it does allow for the individual to maintain more purchasing power...but with the majority of the world still using fiat money, particularly the dollar, you'll still see the insane boom and bust cycles (Something you can only address by stopping fractional reserve banking.)


It's this idiotic mindset that got us to where we are today. Winning > principles.



No, it doesn't. The only problem with the gold standard is that politicians will be tempted to leave the gold standard. Competing currencies, fyi, solves that problem.



I don't grade on a curve. If you fail the test, you fail the test. Regardless if everyone else in your class is an idiot too.

[TheTexan]

FYI, Gary supports competing currencies. But aside from that fact, competing currencies does NOT solve that problem. I've laid into Travylr on this point, and now I will with you since you don't seem to comprehend the basics.

It is you that can't comprehend the basics. Which is made evident by the rest of your post. You simply do not understand free market economics, and likely never will. If you already had this discussion, and are still economically challenged, I don't think I'll be able to fix your lack of fundamental understanding in this thread. Go read a book or something.

1) When free to do so, people and private companies will use the currency that brings them the most value & wealth
2) For the vast majority of people and private companies, that currency is hard money

Now, the banking cartel will try to keep people on the dollar for as long as possible, so their printing presses retain their purpose, but without the force of the government's guns behind them, they can't force people to stay on the dollar.

If you think people would voluntarily stay on the dollar in a free market, that implies either:
1) You don't believe in free market principles
or
2) You don't believe hard money is a better currency than fiat money

Your whole argument is a giant red herring, and to anyone who understands the problem, your 'argument' proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[misean]

It's this idiotic mindset that got us to where we are today. Winning > principles.



No, it doesn't. The only problem with the gold standard is that politicians will be tempted to leave the gold standard. Competing currencies, fyi, solves that problem.



I don't grade on a curve. If you fail the test, you fail the test. Regardless if everyone else in your class is an idiot too.

I would rather work within the reality of the system and human nature than change human nature, given that human nature doesn't change. I recognize that only about 3% of people share similar views to me and I can't have everything that I want. Thomas Sowell talks about the constrained vision vs the unconstrained. There are a lotof similarities between the unconstrained mindset that liberals have and the mindset the anarchists have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Visions#The_Constrained_Vision

Just so we're clear, the statement that the only problem with the gold standard is politicians will be tempted to leave a gold standard is wrong. Jim Grant, Lew Lehrman, and I think Ron Paul would even agree.

Winning kind of is important. Like Ron Paul says, the biggest way to change hearts and minds is by winning elections. Getting a "principled" .5% doesn't change too many minds.

And if you are such a tough grader, are you really saying Harry Browne was the best a country of 300 million people has to offer? I don't dislike what I know of Harry Browne. However, I could rattle off quite a few libertarian names that would be/have been much better.

[rockandrollsouls]

You're wrong on so many levels. Your assumption of legalizing gold leading to a massive switch is absurd. The fact of the matter is most people will not move from the dollar in the free market, one reason being you haven't seen a large public push to do so for the past 100 years. Does our small movement constitute "most people and private companies?" :rolleyes:

The function of commodity money you are describing is already available in other investment vehicles. There is no government force preventing anyone from using gold as a store of value. I'd further argue the transactional element of commodity money is not persuasive enough to lead most individuals to a switch.

Long story short, the big money benefits from the counterfeiting available from fiat money. The quick profits to be had from this are always greater than anything hard money has to offer, and we've already seen many companies(and our government,) make ridiculous profits from fractional reserve banking practices. Many companies took the profits and parked it in investment vehicles (that combat inflation) such as physical gold or gold ETFs (Goldman did this) before the value of the dollars are eroded. It's a vicious cycle, and it's all tied into FRB.

So long as the government and the bankers have access to fractional reserve banking, no amount of individual or community use of hard money can stop the cycle. If Goldman and other investment banks have such huge influence (as they already steer the investment markets,) how will a few people using gold as money change a damned thing?

If a central bank can still print money an institution can readily use for gain, which trickles down to the individual who can use it readily for gain, and it all culminates by money inflating a sector it otherwise wouldn't have, creating a bubble. How does it stop? A competing currency won't stop this. It will help some people maintain purchasing power that aren't shuffling it back and forth between different investments, but FRB is still going to lead to the boom and bust cycles that unleash havoc on our economy. Austrians have already identified the cause for boom and busts cycles as fractional reserve banking. A competing currency doesn't address that. You're still going to have this awful business cycle that leads to so much pain and inequity.

But this is just another prime example of you being stuck in wild theory and not living in the real world.

If everyone was educated, understood sound economics, and our government, financial institutions, military, and oil companies weren't corrupt and colluding, MAYBE a competing gold currency would do away with the systemic problems of fractional reserve banking. Unfortunately, that's not the case in the real world.


It is you that can't comprehend the basics. Which is made evident by the rest of your post. You simply do not understand free market economics, and likely never will. If you already had this discussion, and are still economically challenged, I don't think I'll be able to fix your lack of fundamental understanding in this thread. Go read a book or something.

1) When free to do so, people and private companies will use the currency that brings them the most value & wealth
2) For the vast majority of people and private companies, that currency is hard money

Now, the banking cartel will try to keep people on the dollar for as long as possible, so their printing presses retain their purpose, but without the force of the government's guns behind them, they can't force people to stay on the dollar.

If you think people would voluntarily stay on the dollar in a free market, that implies either:
1) You don't believe in free market principles
or
2) You don't believe hard money is a better currency than fiat money

Your whole argument is a giant red herring, and to anyone who understands the problem, your 'argument' proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[TheTexan]

You're wrong on so many levels. Your assumption of legalizing gold leading to a massive switch is absurd. The fact of the matter is most people will not move from the dollar in the free market, one reason being you haven't seen a large public push to do so for the past 100 years. Does our small movement constitute "most people and private companies?" :rolleyes:

The function of commodity money you are describing is already available in other investment vehicles. There is no government force preventing anyone from using gold as a store of value. I'd further argue the transactional element of commodity money is not persuasive enough to lead most individuals to a switch.

Long story short, the big money benefits from the counterfeiting available from fiat money. The quick profits to be had from this are always greater than anything hard money has to offer, and we've already seen many companies(and our government,) make ridiculous profits from fractional reserve banking practices. Many companies took the profits and parked it in investment vehicles (that combat inflation) such as physical gold or gold ETFs (Goldman did this) before the value of the dollars are eroded. It's a vicious cycle, and it's all tied into FRB.

So long as the government and the bankers have access to fractional reserve banking, no amount of individual or community use of hard money can stop the cycle. If Goldman and other investment banks have such huge influence (as they already steer the investment markets,) how will a few people using gold as money change a damned thing?

If a central bank can still print money an institution can readily use for gain, which trickles down to the individual who can use it readily for gain, and it all culminates by money inflating a sector it otherwise wouldn't have, creating a bubble. How does it stop? A competing currency won't stop this. It will help some people maintain purchasing power that aren't shuffling it back and forth between different investments, but FRB is still going to lead to the boom and bust cycles that unleash havoc on our economy. Austrians have already identified the cause for boom and busts cycles as fractional reserve banking. A competing currency doesn't address that. You're still going to have this awful business cycle that leads to so much pain and inequity.

But this is just another prime example of you being stuck in wild theory and not living in the real world.

If everyone was educated, understood sound economics, and our government, financial institutions, military, and oil companies weren't corrupt and colluding, MAYBE a competing gold currency would do away with the systemic problems of fractional reserve banking. Unfortunately, that's not the case in the real world.

Your argument is this:
1) Goldman Sachs is extremely powerful because of funny money
2) Any attempt at hard money would be squashed by the extremely powerful Goldman Sachs, so we shouldn't even try.

You sir, are a coward and a fool. Goldman Sachs loves people like you.

[rockandrollsouls]

I can't make you read and comprehend that which you wont. :rolleyes:

1. Fractional reserve banking is what causes the business cycle and devaluation of currency.
2. A competing currency does not stop this.
3. The only way to put an end to it is to put an end to fractional reserve banking.

[TheTexan]

I can't make you read and comprehend that which you wont. :rolleyes:

1. Fractional reserve banking is what causes the business cycle and devaluation of currency.
2. A competing currency does not stop this.
3. The only way to put an end to it is to put an end to fractional reserve banking.

You realize that if we had the political clout to get competing currency passed, we'd also be able to get a (real) gold standard passed for the dollar, also? A (real) gold standard has the implied property of non-FRB. If it allows FRB, it's not a gold standard.

Competing currency + (real) gold standard = Honest money that stays honest

Federal Reserve + anti-FRB legislation = ... The Fed can still print money, which is theft, which you don't seem to like to address.

FRB does contribute to the business cycle, but really it only multiplies and worsens the root problem itself: Printing money.

[TheTexan]

With FRB:

A bank is loaned a dollar for 0.1%. He then loans 10 dollars. Economy is fucked.

Without FRB:

A bank is loaned 10 dollars for 0.01% each. The effective cost of the money is the same, because the demand is the same, and the supply is the same. He then loans 10 dollars. Economy is still fucked.

Basically, the whole concept of FRB is meaningless when applied to a currency that is backed by nothing.

The federal reserve is the source of all dollars. The Fed IS FRB except their reserve requirement is zero. They loan money with [I]no reserve, at all.

reserve requirement 'R' = 0.
money multiplier 'm' = (1/R)

The Fed's money multiplier = (1/0) = infinite.

Until you use hard money, there will always be FRB

[falconplayer11]

Gary will be on the ballot this November. If you guys support him, he may even get in a few debates.

Ron Paul will not be on the ballot and will not be in the debates.

Let's get behind the libertarian who is actually running for president. Don't fall for the notion that it's either Paul or nothing. Ron Paul himself would never advocate such a view.

[TheTexan]

Let's get behind the Libertarian who is actually running for president.

FTFY

[Nathan Hale]

The LP has had bright spots along its path, but a few bright spots does not an entire party make. I'm sure the Republican Party appeared conservative in its goldwater years. Hint: it wasn't.

If you were to have said Harry Browne is a libertarian... I'd agree with that. But to say the party itself is libertarian... no sir, I don't agree with that at all. And the proof are the candidates that have followed since. Barr? Johnson? Seriously?

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I consider libertarianism an entire fifth of the political spectrum, per the Nolan chart. You consider libertarianism a matter of adherence to a single axiom, per the LP "pledge". My problem with the LP, especially in the late 90's and early 00's was that it was too extreme. I was a part of the Reform the LP movement to turn it into an actual political party. We're just cut from different cloths. Oh well.

[Nathan Hale]

It's pretty indisputable that the LP sold out by 2006, though.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/lp-turkish-delight.html

The LP didn't sell out, they made a poor choice. The best thing that ever happened to the LP was that they realized, from 2004-2006, with the help of the Reform the LP movement, that they were an actual political party, and not some debate and education society. The problem was that they made a poor choice in 2008 with Bob Barr, who turned out to be a total dud.

[Nathan Hale]

It's this idiotic mindset that got us to where we are today. Winning > principles.

If anything, the opposite is the problem. If you don't win, your principles are meaningless because the goal of a political party is to make principles into policy. So the prerogative of the LP is to prioritize principles (i.e. have some semblance of a platform), but at the same time, prioritize winning elections (i.e. make that platform close enough to the voter epicenter to be capable of generating wins).

[TheTexan]

If anything, the opposite is the problem. If you don't win, your principles are meaningless because the goal of a political party is to make principles into policy. So the prerogative of the LP is to prioritize principles (i.e. have some semblance of a platform), but at the same time, prioritize winning elections (i.e. make that platform close enough to the voter epicenter to be capable of generating wins).

History shows that strategy to be fruitless. However, if you do insist on prioritizing principles... might I suggest... the fed.

[Nathan Hale]

History shows that strategy to be fruitless. However, if you do insist on prioritizing principles... might I suggest... the fed.

History shows that strategy "to be" fruitless? Really? That's your advice? Strategy is about having a plan. It's about finding the path to victory and working so that we can walk that path while overcoming the obstacles that rise to meet us. That's strategy - and it's *essential* to any venture with a hope in hell of amounting to anything. You know what you get when a bunch of principled people get together and eschew strategic planning? You get commune farms in Humboldt county that fail after two years because none of the hippies realized how difficult it was to run a farm.

[TheTexan]

History shows that strategy "to be" fruitless? Really? That's your advice? Strategy is about having a plan.

Strategy is also about having a plan that hasn't been tried and failed 100 times before. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


You know what you get when a bunch of principled people get together and eschew strategic planning?

The Ron Paul movement is an example of what can happen when you stick to principles. Ron Paul's strict adherence to principles brought about the largest resurgence in libertarianism in many decades. Don't be so quick to give up on principles.

[rockandrollsouls]

1.) A competing currency does not a hard currency make.... just because a congress may vote to legalize competing currencies, it absolutely does not mean they will vote to remove the dollar and replace it with gold. Making the jump from one to the other is a stretch of the imagination. :rolleyes:
2.) You could, in theory, prohibit FRB and maintain a fiat currency. For the record I'm not advocating this as my position. Just stating.


With FRB:

A bank is loaned a dollar for 0.1%. He then loans 10 dollars. Economy is fucked.

Without FRB:

A bank is loaned 10 dollars for 0.01% each. The effective cost of the money is the same, because the demand is the same, and the supply is the same. He then loans 10 dollars. Economy is still fucked.

Basically, the whole concept of FRB is meaningless when applied to a currency that is backed by nothing.

The federal reserve is the source of all dollars. The Fed IS FRB except their reserve requirement is zero. They loan money with [I]no reserve, at all.

reserve requirement 'R' = 0.
money multiplier 'm' = (1/R)

The Fed's money multiplier = (1/0) = infinite.

Until you use hard money, there will always be FRB

[TheTexan]

1.) A competing currency does not a hard currency make.... just because a congress may vote to legalize competing currencies, it absolutely does not mean they will vote to remove the dollar and replace it with gold. Making the jump from one to the other is a stretch of the imagination. :rolleyes:
2.) You could, in theory, prohibit FRB and maintain a fiat currency. For the record I'm not advocating this as my position. Just stating.

For the record, you completely avoided the point that it is literally impossible to eliminate FRB when the currency is backed by nothing

[falconplayer11]

Back to Gary Johnson...

Are you guys really so shallow as to believe that Gary Johnson's capital-L Libertarianism makes him a joke? Ron Paul is a Republican. Last time I checked, Republicans were a party of neocons who used taxpayer money to prop up their party. But it doesn't matter, because Ron Paul is a libertarian. His views--not his party--is what matters. Ron has even said that himself.

In that light, Gary Johnson is--yes--a Libertarian. But his views line up almost 100% with Ron Paul's. Admittedly, Gary is not as intelligent as Ron and does not seem to understand as well as Ron the ins and outs of Austrian economics. But his appointees will. He wants to support the message of liberty. He even switched parties to do so. He is a proven leader, having done an exceptional job in New Mexico with a population that was 2-to-1 Democrat.

There is something special about this guy. He isn't perfect. But he is a million times better than either of the establishment candidates. Please support him. Get him on the national stage so he can show Americans that Ron Paul was right.

[TheTexan]

But his views line up almost 100% with Ron Paul's.

That's a stretch


Admittedly, Gary is not as intelligent as Ron and does not seem to understand as well as Ron the ins and outs of Austrian economics.

It's really not very complicated. Forcing us to use a currency backed by nothing is a) aggression, and b) theft. That's all he needs to know.

[rockandrollsouls]

No, I addressed it quite clearly. But your blatant misunderstanding of basic economic issues is showing. Fractional reserve banking is a practice. The type of money used obviously has a significant impact on that practice, but a nation can have fiat money without fractional reserve banking.

To say fiat money begets fractional reserve banking is a flat-out lie. And that is a fact. A nation could have accompanying legislation prohibiting fractional reserve banking. It may have a policy that prevents artificial expansion and contraction of the money supply.

Again, not saying I advocate this. However, you make a ton of statements that simply are not grounded in fact or reality. I don't mind the debate, but to blatantly lie is shameful.


For the record, you completely avoided the point that it is literally impossible to eliminate FRB when the currency is backed by nothing

[rockandrollsouls]

Another lie. It's entirely within the power of Congress to determine money and its value. We might not agree, but it's certainly not aggression. Further, while fiat money that is artificially manipulated will have a hidden cost of inflation, and this may be considered theft, a stable fiat currency is not an impossible idea should it be free from manipulation and fractional reserve banking.

You are also entirely within your rights to move your purchasing power in and out of gold. As much as many here claim to be lovers of gold, including yourself, I've not seen anyone here who has a majority of their savings parked in the commodity. Put your money where you mouth is.


That's a stretch



It's really not very complicated. Forcing us to use a currency backed by nothing is a) aggression, and b) theft. That's all he needs to know.

[TheTexan]

No, I addressed it quite clearly.

No, you didn't. You didn't even address the point. At all. The only two debate techniques you seem to capable of using are ad hominem and "that's a lie"


To say fiat money begets fractional reserve banking is a flat-out lie.

Fiat money is fractional reserve banking. The Federal reserve loans trillions of dollars, with zero reserve requirement.

Aside from the fact that the Fed is FRB in of itself, if FRB was made illegal, but without any restrictions on the Federal Reserve itself, it wouldn't do any good. The demand for money would be the same, and the supply of money would be the same. The Fed would just print shit loads of money to meet the new demand. Today's M2 would look like tomorrow's MB.



Another lie.

Is this seriously the only thing you know how to say?


It's entirely within the power of Congress to determine money and its value. We might not agree, but it's certainly not aggression.

That's the bottom line. You don't think forcing people to use a certain currency is aggression. Welcome to my list.

[Nathan Hale]

Strategy is also about having a plan that hasn't been tried and failed 100 times before. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I agree with you, but I don't think this statement applies to my prior post.


The Ron Paul movement is an example of what can happen when you stick to principles. Ron Paul's strict adherence to principles brought about the largest resurgence in libertarianism in many decades. Don't be so quick to give up on principles.

I think it's naive to believe that Ron Paul is where he is today because of his principles. I'm a strategist by trade, and I can tell you as a matter of fact that Paul is surrounded by strategists who do a lot more than tell him "it's your principles, man, just go out there and be yourself and we'll coast to victory". Principles are important, I don't contest that, but they're not the only thing - they don't do a lick of good if they don't become policy.

[rockandrollsouls]

Pretty hilarious I've been fighting for freedom for decades longer than you, have been on this forum longer than you, and you add me to your "list." :rolleyes:

Anyway, you love to make statements that are blatant lies, don't you.... Fiat money is NOT fractional reserve banking. A nation can maintain fiat currency without syphoning it through a private central bank.

You have such a ridiculous misunderstanding of money, the money supply, and the fed I can't even begin to educate you here. You've taken a number of governmental AND fed functions and deemed them "inclusive" under fiat money. You literally took about 20 different ideas and stuck them all under the label of "comes with fiat money." Either you're making a terrible mistake by gross generalization to prove a point you don't fully understand, or you really just don't comprehend the concept of money.

I can start you off with a basic example. Let's say the government is issuing currency. In this instance, it can issue gold or paper dollars. If it issues paper dollars and I have 10 of those dollars, and I loan someone 5 of those dollars, I have 5 and the other person has 5. Where is the fractional reserve banking you claim with fiat money in this instance?

Answer:
The only force that permits fractional reserve banking is GOVERNMENT. It's LEGALIZED counterfeiting. If I am not permitted (by the government) to counterfeit excess dollars to lend out, where is the fractional reserve banking you're talking about? How could I possibly lend out more than I have?

The debate of whether Gold or a fiat currency is the better choice is entirely debatable and not something I am arguing here (I support a gold standard.) HOWEVER, fiat money is NOT fractional reserve banking unless the counterfeiting is legalized by the government. Without fractional reserve banking, the largest difference between gold and fiat currency, for argument, is which will hold it's value better and more consistently. One has intrinsic value, the other has value based on the full faith and credit of the issuing country. (obviously, gold is always the better choice.) But long story short, without FRB you can have the same number of dollars you issued originally, just like you can have the same amount of gold you issued.

We've already viewed it with gold and silver certificates throughout our history. 1 to 1 it worked quite well. It was only when the government permitted fractional reserve banking did we see to many certificates for the amount of gold.

Really, really basic stuff, and I don't have the time to continually educate you about it. You are free to maintain your point that a gold standard is the only way, and I agree with that, but lying and distorting facts to further your cause is NOT appreciated.



No, you didn't. You didn't even address the point. At all. The only two debate techniques you seem to capable of using are ad hominem and "that's a lie"



Fiat money is fractional reserve banking. The Federal reserve loans trillions of dollars, with zero reserve requirement.

Aside from the fact that the Fed is FRB in of itself, if FRB was made illegal, but without any restrictions on the Federal Reserve itself, it wouldn't do any good. The demand for money would be the same, and the supply of money would be the same. The Fed would just print shit loads of money to meet the new demand. Today's M2 would look like tomorrow's MB.




Is this seriously the only thing you know how to say?



That's the bottom line. You don't think forcing people to use a certain currency is aggression. Welcome to my list.

[TheTexan]

Pretty hilarious I've been fighting for freedom for decades longer than you, have been on this forum longer than you, and you add me to your "list." :rolleyes:

FYI this is all I'm going to read of your post, because you've proven yourself incapable of understanding liberty. Send me a PM when you figure out that pointing guns to people's head and forcing them to use a currency is aggression.

Until then... don't bother making any more small novels full of "that's a lie" and "this is a lie"... because I'm not wasting any further time on you

[rockandrollsouls]

You simply can't respond to the facts I've provided you with. I'm looking at this objectively and from a Constitutional standpoint. You've managed to mix your own personal views, dogma, and feelings with the law. Not a pleasant mix.

I'm still waiting for you to provide me with a reason as to why Congress is not permitted, in your view, to designate a fiat dollar as currency. And I'm not talking about a federal reserve note, which IS unconstitutional and illegal (you don't seem to understand the difference between the two.) I, however, can point you to Article 1, Section 8.

I'm done with you until you understand the difference between opinion and fact. IE, saying a fiat currency cannot exist without FRB IS a plain lie, also your opinion, and NOT a fact.


FYI this is all I'm going to read of your post, because you've proven yourself incapable of understanding liberty. Send me a PM when you figure out that pointing guns to people's head and forcing them to use a currency is aggression.

Until then... don't bother making any more small novels full of "that's a lie" and "this is a lie"... because I'm not wasting any further time on you

[wgadget]

I'm all for busting up the Wall Street political empire. Go, Gary!

Unfortunately, wise husband had never heard of Gary Johnson and said he didn't think 99% of the electorate had either...

Will he be joining the debates? On my Facebook page it said he was getting ready for them...?

[TheTexan]

You simply can't respond to the facts I've provided you with. I'm looking at this objectively and from a Constitutional standpoint. You've managed to mix your own personal views, dogma, and feelings with the law. Not a pleasant mix.

I'm still waiting for you to provide me with a reason as to why Congress is not permitted, in your view, to designate a fiat dollar as currency. And I'm not talking about a federal reserve note, which IS unconstitutional and illegal (you don't seem to understand the difference between the two.) I, however, can point you to Article 1, Section 8.

I'm done with you until you understand the difference between opinion and fact. IE, saying a fiat currency cannot exist without FRB IS a plain lie, also your opinion, and NOT a fact.

You know, because you're such a huge fan of fiat money, and everyone else here is... not... has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're on the wrong forum?

[rockandrollsouls]

You have a major problem reading. Just showing me and everyone else you don't read before you speak, particularly considering in my last post I specifically said I support the gold standard.

The issue here is you lie and fabricate "facts." This is no different from any other aspect of life. Act like an adult (assuming you are one) and learn to handle yourself. Just because you disagree with something or someone doesn't mean you need to act like a child and lie and rant. You can disagree and make a case while actually sticking to factual information instead of making things up to further your agenda. Don't bother responding to me anymore. You've confirmed the type of person you are.


You know, because you're such a huge fan of fiat money, and everyone else here is... not... has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're on the wrong forum?

[TheTexan]

particularly considering in my last post I specifically said I support the gold standard.[/I]

You and Johnson both apparently. You can quit with the "I'm for the gold standard" act, it's transparently obvious that you're not