Some examples...
Much better. Without specifics, discussion is impossible.
The gold standard proved untenable back in the early 1900s. Thankfully, we moved on to a system that doesn't limit economic growth by our ability to dig shiny yellow metal out of the ground...
You're voicing a common economic fallacy that the economy is somehow limited by its supply of currency. That's false. On a gold standard, or any other stable currency, increased wealth is accommodated very simply: prices fall. If we were still on the original gold standard, and an ounce of gold were pegged at $20, then a new Macbook Pro would cost roughly $60. That's all.
Nobody made any grand discovery in 1913. What happened was that the nation's richest men designed a system that allowed them to share the power of inflation with government. For them, unprecedented wealth. For government, the power to steal money from everyone in the nation at once
without a penny in taxation. By inflating, they can steal money from your very mattress without you realizing what happened.
Saying things to the effect of "Iran would never be able to invade the mainland USA, so they aren't a threat" isn't just crazy, it's downright dangerous. An understanding of unconventional and asymmetric warfare is probably the single most important requirement of a Commander in Chief today...
I'm afraid he's right and you're wrong. The hypothetical "smoking gun is a mushroom cloud" scenario, while over-hyped, proves my point. Folks who push that scenario are thinking like a Hollywood movie, where the credits roll right after the big kaboom. They ignore what happens next: Tehran, and possibly all of Iran, is wiped out in an immediate nuclear counterstrike. There is
no existential threat to the United States today. The threat of a terrorist attack is genuine, but (1) Bush is doing nothing to reduce the risk, and (2) such an attack will be suicide for the country that sponsors it.
And finally,
nothing justifies taking away our liberties,
especially not "security." Quite frankly, I'd rather lose a city than lose the freedoms that make this country worth living in.
(Incidentally, we use bounties already; Saddam Hussein, Al Zarqawi, and ObL all have/had $25 million bounties on their heads. Perhaps some one should inform the Paul campaign. And if bounties are supposed to be enough to bring in ObL, where is he?)
They aren't being used as effectively as they could. Letters of marque are different than military-offered bounties.
Ron Paul rails against the Patriot Act. Then he complains that the nation's intelligence gathering agencies can't communicate with each other, which is the very problem that the Patriot Act addressed.
No. The USA PATRIOT act gives the agencies power to violate Americans' fourth-amendment rights. It does
not simply allow the CIA to talk with the NSA and FBI. That wouldn't require an act of Congress, since all of those agencies are part of the executive branch. It just requires the President saying, "Hey, guys, share your information."
Then he proposes abolishing the FBI, our biggest and most important investigative agency.
Since when our "biggest and most important"? Pure FUD. The founders specifically didn't want the federal government having armed agents of any sort--this was central to the origin of the second amendment. There are other ways to handle interstate investigations that don't violate the Constitution.
That he holds these contradictory and irreconcilable views indicates to me that Ron Paul is crazy.
They're 100% consistent--that's what makes them seem so crazy: each and every one of his views is precisely that of the framers of the Constitution. In cases where the framers themselves were divided, Paul sides with Jefferson's faction. Not inconsistent; it's
scarily consistent.
Look, we've been over all this before. I don't want to have to type all this out again and again. It's not like y'all are going to change your minds...
... nor we yours. But there's a chance. Better dialog than, say, civil war.
--Len.
