Ron Paul On Face The Nation

[strategy 4]

I don't think much of mankiw but this is pretty funnyhttp://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron...-portfolio.htmlholding double or triple inverse funds... particularly stupid for any timeframe over a day or twoof course it has to be mentioned that he is crushing most active fund managers in the last 8-15 yearshttp://seekingalpha.com/article/290202-ron...t-and-most-pros

[hblask 1]

Newsflash: Libertarian ideas called wacky, extreme and kooky yet again despite being right, yet again. (*)This result did make a question pop into my head: why are Austrian economics and libertarian politics generally tied together? I don't know the history and there is no obvious connection. Is it a historical accident due to early authors like Hayek? Or is it something more fundamental, like a stronger focus on unintended consequences rather than good intentions, and an inherent distrust of technocrats? I suspect it is the latter, but I guess I've never seen an analysis.(*) Frankly I think his portfolio is wacky, too, I would never recommend that to anyone, because even if you are right about the direction, the time frame could be all wrong. I could never be that sure of myself about my understanding of *anything*. But you have to admire someone willing to put their money where their mouth is.

[strategy 4]

it's nice that he's at least consistent with his portfolio and beliefs. but lord is that allocation stupid. chart gold vs. equities 1900-present for more info. honestly, I wonder if gold even beats bonds in that timeframe.

[hblask 1]

it's nice that he's at least consistent with his portfolio and beliefs. but lord is that allocation stupid. chart gold vs. equities 1900-present for more info. honestly, I wonder if gold even beats bonds in that timeframe.

Right, and that's why I said I would never do that, no matter how much I think I knew. A decade or so ago I saw a century-long graph of gold vs bonds vs stocks, adjusted for inflation.The end result, if they started at 100Gold = 100Bonds = 200-300Stocks = over 1000So over very long time periods, gold is a perfect hedge against inflation/devaluation, but a very poor investment. Market timing is always a dangerous game, but if you get it right, there are big payoffs. As a member of Congress he probably sees more about what is happening to our money than most people, so maybe he didn't think of it as a risk, instead it may have looked like common sense to him.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Ron Paul doesn't hate Gay people he just won't use their washrooms or shake hands with them.The below is from a long time aide who wrote what he did to support Paul.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/e...kusaolp00000008

Eric Dondero writes on Right Wing News that his former boss "is not all bigoted towards homosexuals" and supports their rights to do whatever they want in private. He is, however, "personally uncomfortable around homosexuals," as the following story shows: In 1988, Ron had a hardcore Libertarian supporter, Jim Peron, Owner of Laissez Faire Books in San Francisco. Jim set up a magnificent 3-day campaign swing for us in the SF Bay Area. Jim was what you would call very openly Gay. But Ron thought the world of him. For 3 days we had a great time trouncing from one campaign event to another with Jim's Gay lover. The atmosphere was simply jovial between the four of us. (As an aside we also met former Cong. Pete McCloskey during this campaign trip.) We used Jim's home/office as a "base." Ron pulled me aside the first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps "sternly" is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: "Just do what I say NOW."Dondero goes on to relay another display of Paul's "discomfort" with gays, years later at a Surfside Beach party: "Bobby," a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.

And he of course wishes that Isreal didn't exist.

According to Dondero, Paul is not racist (as evidenced by his frequent hiring of blacks for office staff), but again there are significant caveats. He is what I would describe as "out of touch," with both Hispanic and Black culture. Ron is far from being the hippest guy around. He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)Dondero claims that while Paul is not an anti-Semite, he is "most certainly Anti-Israel" and wishes the Israeli state did not exist. But Paul has "no problem with" American Jews.

[strategy 4]

ever seen Bruno?

[ShakeZuma 585]

Ron Paul doesn't hate Gay people he just won't use their washrooms or shake hands with them.The below is from a long time aide who wrote what he did to support Paul.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/e...kusaolp00000008And he of course wishes that Isreal didn't exist.

holy shit, well I gotta tell ya, this along with mk's shocking expose into paul's blatant racism can only mean one thing: ron paul is the anti christ. sure am glad everybody was able to look past his platform stances and voting record that show the opposite to find these incidents that clearly indict him as a evil racist homophobe.

[CaneBrain 95]

holy shit, well I gotta tell ya, this along with mk's shocking expose into paul's blatant racism can only mean one thing: ron paul is the anti christ. sure am glad everybody was able to look past his platform stances and voting record that show the opposite to find these incidents that clearly indict him as a evil racist homophobe.

don't forget anti-semetic!

[Balloon guy 158]

I wonder who the homosexual community would prefer:A. A candidate who clearly says he wants gay rights across the board and no government involvement in their lives. But who personally doesn't like them.B. A candidate who says he needs to think about things, and does very little. But personally likes the famous ones.

[ShakeZuma 585]

don't forget anti-semetic!

I intended for that to be included in the racist part, but yeah, he obviously hates all jews too.

[irishguy 14]

Ron Paul doesn't hate Gay people he just won't use their washrooms or shake hands with them.The below is from a long time aide who wrote what he did to support Paul.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/e...kusaolp00000008

The views on aids were much different back in 88. It was fairly common for people to think sharing bathrooms, shaking hands etc could get you infected. The fact that he spent days hanging around this guy and his partner says more good about his character then his naivety says bad.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

The views on aids were much different back in 88. It was fairly common for people to think sharing bathrooms, shaking hands etc could get you infected. The fact that he spent days hanging around this guy and his partner says more good about his character then his naivety says bad.

Paul is a complicated guy and I think this just shows some of his personality.I think it says something keeping in mind that's he's an MD that he didn't want to be exposed to Gay Bathroom Cooties even in the late 80's.

[Balloon guy 158]

End of the day I think Paul could do some really good things for this country.But the newsletter thing pretty much finishes him.It was his newsletter. Pretending he didn't have responsibility for those racist comments is stupid. It was an 8 page newsletter with his name on top.The guy let those things go to print, and that makes him a racist sympathizer at best.

[CaneBrain 95]

I intended for that to be included in the racist part, but yeah, he obviously hates all jews too.

He is really involved in a lot of things that have long histories of streaks of anti-semitism. But, his only overt action seems to be some hostility to Israel. That's not really the same thing as being anti-semetic though; there are large groups of Jews who are also anti-Israel for a variety of reasons.

[hblask 1]

End of the day I think Paul could do some really good things for this country.But the newsletter thing pretty much finishes him.It was his newsletter. Pretending he didn't have responsibility for those racist comments is stupid. It was an 8 page newsletter with his name on top.The guy let those things go to print, and that makes him a racist sympathizer at best.

I thought it would finish him, but his poll numbers climbed nationally after this became re-news.Here is the latest description/explanation I can find: back then, when the newsletters were published, libertarians were a fringe group. (When I first heard of libertarians in the early 90s it created a huge buzz if somebody used the word 'libertarian' on TV, even on a local news show). And as supporters of the rights of all, even objectionable people (since protecting rights for the popular is pointless) some libertarians thought directly appealing to those fringe groups would be a good strategy. This was mostly pushed by Murray Rothbard (who is fairly fringe even for libertarians) and Lew Rockwell, who was editing the newsletters.So they wrote this stuff. And if I'm being honest, it appears that Ron Paul did know they were doing it, and didn't prevent it. Seeing his personality, I doubt he was comfortable with it, but he was a fringe political candidate with no hope of influencing the debate unless he can get followers, so why not, right? I think that's what separates professional politicians from political outsiders -- the career politicians judge everything they say and do from an early age in light of how it will look when they run for president. I don't think RP ever thought that far ahead, and trusted his idiot friends that this would not come back to bite him.Is he racist? Again, it appears not. But as a political decision the choice to let them go ahead with these newsletters is insanely bad.Anyway, just rambling.... here's what I really wanted to post:Another great article from Reason on the RP situation

[BaseJester 1]

LA Times: Paul winning really means Romney winning

[mk 11]

I know what can be reliably assumed about you, based on the meaning of your own words.In order for that assumption to be inaccurate, then that means everything you've ever said must've been for the sake of reaction...

What's your deal, man? Did a black kid beat you up and take your lunch money once? Did you get made fun of on the el for wearing that hat? Still upset about that zany hibbity-hop rap "music" overtaking "real" music?REGALE US WITH THE ANECDOTES OF AMSCRAY

[hblask 1]

LA Times: Paul winning really means Romney winning

Corporate welfare makes people write crazy things.

[brvheart 1,752]

I think it says something keeping in mind that's he's an MD that he didn't want to be exposed to Gay Bathroom Cooties even in the late 80's.

?? wow.In like 1995 NBA players were saying that they wouldn't play against Magic. His being an OB/GYN 20 years prior would have absolutely nothing to do with his current knowledge of new auto-immune viruses.

[AmScray 355]

What's your deal, man? Did a black kid beat you up and take your lunch money once? Did you get made fun of on the el for wearing that hat? Still upset about that zany hibbity-hop rap "music" overtaking "real" music?REGALE US WITH THE ANECDOTES OF AMSCRAY

Standard, but you forgot "WHAT DID A BLACK GUY STEAL YOUR GIRLFRIEND HAHAHAHA".

[CaneBrain 95]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...tims/?hpt=hp_t1There are three complaints in here. The first and third seem really damaging. The 2nd one seems to be no big deal; that's not an out of the mainstream conservative viewpoint at all.

[AmScray 355]

There are three complaints in here. The first and third seem really damaging. The 2nd one seems to be no big deal; that's not an out of the mainstream conservative viewpoint at all.

Do you support the recent Israeli purge of 50,000 Negroes, expelling them from Israel?Don't get me wrong: I do support that. I support the Calabrians pogrom against the Negroes last year, I support Israel getting rid of them too... but I wonder how you would view it?

[hblask 1]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...tims/?hpt=hp_t1There are three complaints in here. The first and third seem really damaging. The 2nd one seems to be no big deal; that's not an out of the mainstream conservative viewpoint at all.

If I'm understanding this correctly, the three complaints are:1. AIDS is a "choice".2. Institutionalized racism is still racism3. Questioned whether sexual harassment should be a crime.On the first, I think he was trying to make a point and did it poorly: that AIDS is 100% avoidable, and therefore imposing costs on others to cover that choice is wrong. I think he overstates the case here a bit; I mean, colds are unavoidable too, theoretically, along with many other injuries and accidents. There is such a thing as degree of avoid-ability. AIDS is definitely in the gray area. But certainly at this point you have to make some pretty bad choices to get it, except in rare instances of a cheating partner who you trust. At any rate, should we really be able to pass our costs on to others, whether it's AIDS or broken legs from skiing or heart attacks from smoking?On the second, yes, at some point, the laws to protect minorities causes more harm than good; I think we reached that point in the 90s. Obviously everyone will have a different view on that, but it is clear blacks can now achieve whatever they want, seeing as we have one for president. At what point does this stop? When do the rights of the group exceed that of the individual?On the third, this is a property rights issue: who owns the workplace, who owns the job? Does taking a job mean you get to keep it for life on whatever terms you want? Why? The only justification I can see is some sense of entitlement that people *owe* you a job, but who thinks like that? Nobody owes you anything, get over it.With careful wording, none of these would have been an issue; but Paul is honest, blunt, and says what he means. I actually think it's a bit sad and funny that these issues are considered outside the mainstream, seeing as obtaining individual rights was the central premise of the American Revolution, and all these positions reject group rights in favor of individual rights. At what point did it become morally OK to gang up and bully the few?

[AmScray 355]

At any rate, should we really be able to pass our costs on to others, whether it's AIDS or broken legs from skiing or heart attacks from smoking?

That characterization is retarded. It isn't 'passing our costs on to others'.It's acknowledging there is an enormous cost-benefit when some things are handled collectively, as a function of policy, rather than left to free market profiteering. But yes, AIDS is mostly a choice. Tragic are the people who get it in an unintended way but yes, 99% of the time, AIDS serves the purpose it was created for, that being punishing sinners for commingling bodily fluids (because Jesus says that's bad). Still, I don't want something like that floating around out there, so if we have to collectively agree to fund research into its treatment and destruction, I'm cool with that. For the record, I feel that way about Sickle Cell anemia, too.

[BaseJester 1]

That characterization is retarded. It isn't 'passing our costs on to others'.It's acknowledging there is an enormous cost-benefit when some things are handled collectively, as a function of policy, rather than left to free market profiteering. But yes, AIDS is mostly a choice. Tragic are the people who get it in an unintended way but yes, 99% of the time, AIDS serves the purpose it was created for, that being punishing sinners for commingling bodily fluids (because Jesus says that's bad). Still, I don't want something like that floating around out there, so if we have to collectively agree to fund research into its treatment and destruction, I'm cool with that. For the record, I feel that way about Sickle Cell anemia, too.

There are people with this opinion, but not hblask. The point isn't that AIDS is sinful; it's that it's expensive and avoidable. Given that it's society's problem to treat my AIDS, it becomes society's interest to govern my choice of sexual partners and use of condoms.