What are Ron Paul's chances in Iowa?

He has no chance. He will be lucky to get 5% of the vote. And he is a racist.

“We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”—Ron Paul

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”—Ron Paul

And I know I didn’t answer your question.

I agree with JohnPowell. Ron Paul has no chance whatsoever in Iowa for the following reasons:
1. Iowa loves Barack Obama
2. The nation is tired of Republicans thanks to a certain idiot
3. Ron Paul does not understand economics (money backed by gold in today’s world – imagine america without credit)
4. Ron Paul is a racist
5. Ron Paul wants to take America back to the 1890s
6. The Republican Party does not seem to like Ron Paul and even excluded Ron Paul from Iowa in June

ps. some online polls will indicate that Ron Paul has a lead in Iowa but that is because the majority of Ron Paul’s supporters are part of the “online” crowd who for the most part do not even understand the basis of politics and will support anyone who rebels against the government

Ron who?

I am nowhere near racist, but I lived in Roselle, NJ, which is a predominantly black town. I had some interesting conversation with some 14–15 black kids who grew up in gangs and the such. These kids completely opened my mind. They had very good heads on their shoulders, they were just caught up in the wrong scene, and if they wanted to get out, they would have to get beat downs from 3 different groups from the gang. I would happen to agree with the statement that is in johnpowells post. I could not believe the things they were talking about (beating people with brass knuckles, hitting people in the face with a shovel, etc.) The most surprising part was the knowledge of the law they had. They would walk in the streets and on their porch, smoking blunts(cigars with marijuana). The cops can do nothing b/c that would be racial profiling. This is just a small example of the things they were talking about. Go to these areas, talk to some of these people (not being racist) and see what goes on in their lives and why they do it. Living in Roselle had a huge impact on the way I look at inner cities and gangs. These kids grow up with very little parental guidance and learn much earlier in life about the law. Not just getting in trouble, but getting around it.

@chirs6137: i wasnt calling Ron Paul supporters to racists. I meant just Ron Paul himself

@mirza
just like you said IMAGINE america without credit or debt

i know your not, but to say he is racist based on that comment is ignorant. i just wanted to make sure i wasnt perceived as a racist

does anyone else feel the way Lawrence Lepard does in this $85,000 ad he took out in the NYTimes today?
http://www.dailypaul.com/files/common-sense-2-nyt.pdf

This is his second ad. The first ran in USA Today on Thanksgiving Eve and Thanksgiving . It was also an excellent ad. Unfortunatally, I do not have the link for that ad.

@mirza
I am positive that you have much more knowledge of economics than I do. However, do you have more knowledge than the many economics professors that have endorsed Dr. Paul??
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements

My knowledge of economics, is strictly based on the fact that I do not have a savings (I am 25), I make $35 an hour, have no kids, live with my girlfriend, do not have much debt, and dont see how I am supposed to raise a family if we maintain the path the country is taking.

Actually Ron Paul has the best chance in Iowa. Iowa is a caucus state and this type of primary lends best to the type of support Ron Paul is receiving.

Barack Obama does not pose a threat because the decision is mostly up to republican and independents.

Yes it does appear that the republicans are trying to exclude Paul, though this election may become a turning point. From where those in power influence our decisions by preventing access to candidates to where people access there choices themselves and then decide what they want.

As for polls and straw votes, If you take political science you’ll find that polling is a method of creating support for something or someone that may or may not exist.
Most staunch republicans and democrats are going to vote there party and as a result they are often ignored in campaigning. The focus is usually on the swing or undecided vote. This is what polls are used for to influence the swing vote.

If Paul can do better than fifth in Iowa it may give him a better chance in future primaries.

http://relfe.com/Images/ron_paul_usa_today_ad_lepard.pdf

The first Lawrence Lepard ad in USA Today.
Thanks for this link.
You know who you are.

Iowa is a Republican state, not a Libertarian one. Ron Paul goes by the Republican party because it’s the only way he can secure votes, but he is a Libertarian in his views, and will attract Libertarians and Libertarian-leaning Republicans. These reasons are probably the biggest ones why it’s unlikely he can get any significant votes out of Iowa.

chris, I do know economics, and the list on your link is by no means a “Who’s Who in Economics.” Most of Mr. Paul’s economic policies are nice thoughts, but unworkable in the real world. Trying to force economics backwards a century has never worked, just ask China under Mao or Cambodia under Pol Pot. And looking at your description of your financial picture, you are better off than a lot of Americans. Try looking at the full portion of your glass for a change. You don’t have much debt? Are you sure you’re American? : )

@hossman

I second the fact that Paul’s economic ideas are retroactive. On Glenn Beck’s show, he was asked about replacing the IRS with something and he replied that he would replace the IRS with nothing. No taxes whatsoever. He believes that the nation can generate enough revenue to avoid taxation altogether and that spending is the real problem. Well, he’s right about spending, that’s for sure. But is he serious that the nation can get by without taxation? Certainly, such a system would have to be worked in over time for the economy to adapt. But no, he wants to eliminate the Fed and the IRS in one fell swoop. I’m no economic genius, but I at least know that such an idea is too fanciful for the complicated economic world we live in.

Another thing… The Founding Fathers is always his baseline. He claims to know precisely what they were thinking at every juncture during the process of writing the Constitution. As a historian, I must say that no historian out there believes the Founding Fathers could have predicted today’s society. That is precisely why they provided a system that can adapt, and we have seen that occur over the last 200 years. Economically, you can’t say that the Founding Fathers knew it all; they simply could not have known modern economic theory. Ask any economist and they will tell you that Adam Smith’s work in the 18th century, while certainly revolutionary for its time, does contain some fundamental errors in the context of the 21st century.

And the Founding Fathers didn’t have it all solved at that time, for that time, either. Divisions on economic issues really were one of the greatest stimuli to the development of the party system, as our early nation struggled to find a system that worked. Just look at any source about the huge fights over adoption of Hamilton’s proposals.

Sure, we could get rid of the IRS and income tax overnight, replaced by either tariffs or sales taxes. Just be prepared to spend $10K for that TV next Christmas.

@hossman
I know I have it better than alot of Americans. That is my point. I am not just speaking for myself.
Everyone keeps talking about ron Paul taking us backwards, a union electrician, 20 yrs ago, could raise a family of four, on that single income…. Not anymore. Is this moving foward?
as far as that tv goes, looks like we might have to being some manufacturing back to the us.

I appreciate all of your answers! Perhaps this is not the place to begin a forum like discussion but in a world of corrupt corporate controlled globalism it seems to me a few steps backwards would be beneficial for the US. Perhaps not a as a long term policy but as a four year period of reassessment and reconstruction. Let’s pay our head to history here – outgrowth ultimately collapses. Also, one thing i think is fundamental to keep in mind about Ron Paul, pulling out of Iraq and using that squandered money to asses to monetary situation in the states is his platform. His philosophy comes in a far second. And don’t forget about our representatives. His ideas will pass through the prism of congress and his ideas will be tailored to this time. We are no electing a dictator, we are electing a leader – he isn’t really even a lawmaker.

@mirza
Here is Ron Paul’s speech to Congress on what you might say is going back to the gold standard.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/17572

DR. RON PAUL IS THE BEST CANDIDATE HANDS DOWN. Read up on the issues guys… Ignorance is bliss. And whats this question about Ron Paul not knowing anything about economics? He knows the most about economics. Have you ever read his books hes written on it?? Please ask me questions you may have, ill be happy to answer them.
Top 5 things Ron Paul is against.
1. End the Iraq war now and bring our troops home. No more policing the world.
2. End the IRS and replace it with nothing. That is easily attainable, since one, its unconstitutional to tax people, if you guys knew your history, and two we just need to cut excess war spending that is bankrupting this country!!
3. End the Federal Reserve. Folks the federal reserve is no more federal than federal express. It is made up of a small group of international bankers that essentially control booms and busts, money supply, and inflation.
4. End the National ID card. This would allow the government to track your every move, by placing a chip in your liscense. I dont want to be in a police state do you??
5. End the Patriot ACT. This is one of the worst acts established. It essentially limited our freedoms, and allowed the government full access to review your phone records, take you to jail without questions, and tons of other bullshi% stuff.

And the Ron Paul Moonies continue to drink the Kool-Aid. Really guys, if we thought the application of logic to the facts would get you to pipe down, we’d try, but there is no room for discussion with you, so just continue to follow the other few lemmings right off the cliff.

What Ron Paul knows about economics wouldn’t fill a thimble.

Well, I have a degree in economics and I think Ron Paul is the only candidate that understands the subject. The criticisms here are lame. having currency backed by value is not a retro concept among economists and libertarians; he doesn’t say he will replace the irs with nothing, rather he will replace it with a higher tax on purchases. No need for forms, you get taxed even if you get your money illicitly, the big spenders are the big taxed, and there is a savings incentive. Wake up people, we finally have a candidate that makes some sense, and instead of rejecting him for being different than teh current bunch of die cast republicotrons, you should attempt to follow what he is saying.

Hossman, stick with your expertise in COOKING. Do you favor gooliani or Mccain and at least 4 more years of war? Ill admit, i dont agree with all of his positions, but ill tell you this much, he is the most honest man republican running and that is a quote from John Mccain himself in 1988

Gee sorry, frankieb, my expertise does, in fact, include economics. And law. And government. And politics. Cooking, on the other hand, I’m just an amateur. You have no idea why I’m rejecting Ron Paul. What I do know, is that if you lurkers and newbies think that your blunderbuss approach to dominating this and other sites is bringing new voters to Paul, I’d suggest you’re turning off at least three potential voters for each one you might bring in.

None of Mr. Paul’s ideas are new. In fact, I worked for Phil Crane’s presidential campaign when he ran on a lot of the same ideas. It’s merely a warmed over version of the Birch Society’s playbook, and it’s been around for a long time. I’m not questioning whether Mr. Paul is honest. I believe he is. I believe he has great intentions. I also believe he is both wrong, and wrong for this country. If he became President, we would either have complete gridlock as Congress refuses to adopt his agenda, or harmful economic volatility as he pursues his policies but the unintended and unforeseen market consequences erupt around him. Sure, there’s flaws in our system, but it beats any others I’m aware of, and Mr. Paul’s old school program cannot work in today’s global environment. Actually, I agree with many of his dreams, the difference is, I can draw the line between dreams and pragmatism.

And frankly, frankie, you don’t get to tell me what to stick with, and I won’t tell you where it can be stuck. : )

If ron paul became president, it would be because the public supports his positions and that would prevent the gridlock you are talking about. And old ideas are not necessarily bad ideas. This country is run, or should be, on some very brilliant 200–250 year old ideas, which ron paul at least understands the merits of. If we are to continue calling ourselves the US and claiming to follow our constitution, we owe it to ourselves to understand why that is important and to support candidates who wish to follow it. I happen to believe that the founding documents of this country are brilliant in their concept, and that Ron Paul’s presidential campaign necessary for our country.

And, tell us please, what are the unintended market consequences taht would occur if you prevent runaway devaluation of our currency and the runaway inflation that results from same?

Or, perhaps stated alternatively, are you unaware of the unintended consequences of the fed’s recent actions, which are just starting to play out in the post-mortgage bubble “reality hits home, part 1” economy?

Problem is, Ron Paul has a very distorted view of the Constitution. Better yet, rather than just repeating Mr. Paul’s campaign materials, why don’t you or frankieb support some of your prior statements? Such as: tell me IN YOUR OWN WORDS, why income tax is unconstitutional, or tell me IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what NEW limitations on your freedoms were established by the Patriot Act.

And perhaps you could tell me how the President has any control whatsoever of the international currency trade, or why it is necessary to have private currency backed by gold or silver rather than simply purchasing gold or silver or their futures?

And as someone who has conducted over 1,000 real estate closings, perhaps you could tell me why the Federal Reserve is to blame for the mortgage bubble, rather than securitized real estate mortgage trusts, individual lenders, the Clinton Administration, the realtors and loan officers who put their commissions in front of their client’s needs, or the many homeowners who knew darn well they couldn’t afford that house?

Rather than repeating the Paul Kool-Aid sound bites, let’s see you persuade me with some facts and logic. I’m really curious why you think Mr. Paul has some insight about the constitutionality of income taxes that hasn’t already been argued by much better legal minds than Mr. Paul’s, and rejected by every federal court. Or how we will continue to fund education and human services entitlements without the IRS, which is a much larger part of the budget than the Iraq war. Or why Mr. Paul chooses to admire some of our Founding Fathers, yet ignore others who expressed ideas contrary to his own pet projects, like Hamilton.

I’m a big fan of returning to a more originalist, constitutional interpretation of government. I just don’t think Mr. Paul has a strong concept of what that is, nor is he the man to do it. And considering the return of the teeth in Mr. Putin, and other problems abroad, I don’t think Mr. Paul’s isolationism is the way to go. Mr. Paul doesn’t remind me of Jefferson or Washington, he reminds me of Chamberlain and Quisling.

Hossman, no pun intended. As long as you support your candidate based on what he or she stands for and believes in then no argument here.

IRS is unconstitutional. In my own words, i think it is simply SOCIAL CONTROL, not a mechanism for govt revenue. Check out the following youtube video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-PvaNWrkFeQ

Patriot act would take too long to discuss. Text link is below.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/hr3162.txt
Did you know the patriot act came out oct 24th 2001. In just over a month, we have this HUGE act limiting civil liberties. Its just propaganda my friend. Bill Clinton wanted to issue something similar to this, but there wasnt a big enough excuse until 911.

Federal Reserve- This is one of the worst mistakes the us has made.
In 1816 Congress established the second Federal Bank. But, President Jackson , overiding Congress, closed it in 1836 commenting,” The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government… are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.”
But in 1913, the federal reserve was created. Jimmy carter got us off the gold standard, and now our us currency is not backed by anything!

Wow these are basic things and are such huge issues.

I recommend three movies for any american. These are a real eye opener. Check them out on google video.
END GAME
FREEDOM TO FASCISM
ZEITGEIST Part 3

Oh and this subprime mess…. The federal reserve lowered intrest rates so low in 2001 and 2002, that a bum on the streets of nyc could get a home loan. It was a bubble that started around then, as people started borrowing at low rates as they were enticed to, and bought homes that they really couldnt afford. So this blame is on both parties and has had a snow ball effect until just recently we saw the bubble.

Fed slashes rates again
October 2, 2001: 3:21 p.m. ET

U.S. central bank makes 9th cut of year, bringing rates to 40-year lows
The Federal Reserve cut interest rates by a half-percentage point Tuesday, bringing overnight bank lending rates to their lowest level in nearly 40 years in an effort to keep the U.S. economy from falling into a recession.

The U.S. central bank cut its target for the federal funds rate to 2.5 percent from 3.0 percent, the lowest level since 1962. The Fed also cut the seldom-used discount rate to 2.0 percent from 2.5 percent.

2001 Funds Rate
Start 6.5%
Jan. 3 6.0%
Jan. 31 5.5%
March 20 5.0%
April 18 4.5%
May 15 4.0%
June 27 3.75%
Aug. 21 3.5%
Sept. 17 3.0%
Oct. 2 2.5%
Nov. 6 2.0%

Again, frankieb, these are not your words, but links to someone else. In your second post, there is a huge logical error. You state: “The federal reserve lowered intrest rates so low in 2001 and 2002, that a bum on the streets of nyc could get a home loan. It was a bubble that started around then, as people started borrowing at low rates as they were enticed to, and bought homes that they really couldnt afford.”

Well, of course people borrowed at the lower rates when they were made available. Would anyone say, “thanks for that offer of 4.5%, but I’d rather pay 8%?” You make a common logical error. The fed rate is the rate at which banks lend money amongst themselves. It is not the same as the rate at which mortgage lenders lend to homeowners. While certainly lowering the fed rate makes it possible for mortgage lenders to lower their rates, it is still the mortgage lenders decision on a case by case basis to set the rate at which a mortgage will be extended. The fed does not bear responsibility for this “enticing,” the mortgage lenders, AND the homeowners who accepted them, bear responsibility.

Your second logical error is to suggest lower interest rates somehow “forced” homeowners to buy more house than they could afford. Just because interest rates were lower does not mean homeowners had to buy a more expensive house. That was their choice. The lower interest made it possible for them to buy more house for the same monthly payment, but the choice of how high a monthly payment to finance was the sole responsibility of the homeowner.

To use an analogy, your argument is similar to suggesting that if a restaurant offers $5.00 off their steaks, that the restaurant is responsible if their customers order red meat rather than the fish or pasta. While the discount may make the choice more desirable and affordable, the selection is the responsibility of the homeowner. Homeowners certainly could have chosen to use the lower interest rates to buy more home at an affordable monthly payment, rather than to buy even more home at an unaffordable monthly payment.

I’ve tried and tried to explain this to prospective homeowners, only to lose the referral business of their realtors and loan officers, and have the homeowner express irritation at my “harshing the buzz” of their “dream house.” Not only do many consumers act recklessly, they resent any attempt by anyone to encourage them to act responsibly. Or in the words of one of my clients, when I suggested that a $200,000 condo might not be an appropriate purchase for someone working as a grocery cashier, when the monthly payment was 40% of the monthly net income of her and her “fiance” (no ring, no date set, he’d moved out on her several times before and had a history of unemployment), “you’re just saying this because I’m a Latino woman.” Well, no. One of my colleagues represented her in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy 10 months later. I happened to be in the waiting room with other clients while she was waiting to go in to meet with the trustee. She was surrendering the condo, and since she was able to get 100% financing, she wasn’t even losing a down payment. I heard her loudly insisting to anyone who would listening that this was all the fault of “lawyers.” She lived in the condo for 10 months and never made a single mortgage payment. The mortgage lender certainly lost money on this transaction. So who was at fault here? The Fed? I don’t think so. My client, her realtor and her loan officer? Definitely. Would any of them even remotely consider they did something reckless, stupid, or at least mildly inappropriate? Nope.

Gee. sounds awfully like what the govt is doing. When does our bill come?? How many months are we going to have to work to pay for the govts dream home?
All Ron Paul is doing, is putting out the same warning to we the people as you did to your client Hossman. I know you might not agree with his solutions, but the first step in solving a problem, is identifying the problem. At least he is doing that. He will not be able to change anything on his own as president, at least we can start the debate about where the country is headed.

9 trillion in debt. Approx $55 trillion in real debt (SS, medicare, etc.)
Real responsible.

Hey, chris, like other people have said, you’re preaching to the choir. When did the Republicans become the big spenders? I’m tempted to suggest conservatives should join up with Democrats just to teach the Republican Party a lesson, but we’d end up with socialized medicine and even more taxes in a heartbeat. The far left feels unrepresented by the Democrats, fiscal conservatives feel abandoned by the Republicans, seems to me every politician is sucking up to the plebes (in the Roman sense) who could careless about consequences, they just want to know they’re getting their handout.

And hey, this year, due to being underemployed most of the year, for the first time, I’m not paying a dime in income taxes. Funny, it doesn’t feel as good as I thought it would, maybe it takes some time to get used to. . . wonder what’s on Oprah today?

As to when republicans became big spenders, the answer would be “when George W. B took office”

As to BlowhardHossman’s inquiries, though moot at this time, I have the following responses:

Why is the income tax unconstitutional? I never said it was. I don’t know if Ron Paul has said that. I doubt it, but it wouldn’t offend me if he did, since it was never properly ratified by Congress when it was enacted. I am aware that such won’t support a tax avoidance scheme, but again, how is this a “ron Paul” issue. Ron Paul has said he would replace the income tax with another Federal tax, a sales tax. That would have the same problems as far as enactment, so I doubt he believes it is impossible for the Federal govt to enact taxes. A sales tax would tax people regardless of how money is earned, even if illicitly, would eliminate the collection problem, would create a savings incentive, and would eliminate a bureaucracy. It also is an idea that has been popular in the mainstream republican party for some time (though no candidate wants to run on it as it is a risky position).

What new restrictions on freedoms resulted from the Patriot Act? Are you serious? How about invasion of privacy, removal of warrant requirements, elimination of due process requirements if one is a suspected “terrorist.” Are you really a Paul supporter throwing up softball questions?

How does the President have control of international currency markets? he doesn’t and again neither I nor to my knowledge Ron Paul have stated the contrary. The President, however, as a leader of the most powerful nation/economy, can exert tremendous influence over the currency markets and the players that trade there, and if you think otherwise that is naive. Also, if the Fed Reserve board posts become available, the President can appoint like-minded persons to those posts. Laws can be passed which place limits on new currency circulation also, just like Nixon passed laws which removed such restrictions. Another softball. I thought you were knowledgeable on law, government and the economy? It doesn’t seem that way to me.

Why is it necessary to have asset-backed currency, as opposed to fiat currency with a government that speculates in the asset markets? Well, whether the government speculates or profits in gold of silver doesn’t address the fundamental issue of the devaluation of the currency due to runaway printing and unduly low prime interest rates, resulting in overborrowing, financed largely by other countries like Japan and China. You don;t know this?

Are you impressive because you’ve participated in a thousand house closings? No, my dog could close a house sale during the overblown r/e bubble years when you did so.

Are there a lot of people who couldn’t afford their house? Yes, and for them it should be tough shit. but your pres Mr. Bush wants to bail them out.

Why is the federal reserve responsible for the mortgage bubble? Really, you don’t know this? You shouldn’t be calling others ignorant. Go to school. And see above, for answer.

Your grasp of the legal, economic, governmental and other concepts is obviously lacking, and your blowhard approach is foolish. And, at 10%, Ron Paul beat the tar out of Guiliani, ran close to John McCain – one of the favorites and a strong candidate in last election, ran close to Fred Thompson – a t.v. star and public figure, has a greater warchest than the caucus winner, most of which was just raised in the last month, and Mitt Romney already spent most of his warchest on losing in Iowa, and can’t make it happen – a star on the descent. Ron Paul was the biggest victor, Huckabee too, but I think Paul is more in this than those like you, who cling to the idea that Paul’s ideas are strange or unamerican because they don’t toe the republican party line. The Republican party line has sucked for about 8 years, and I’d much rather have an old fashioned, free-market, small government libertarian-republican than a big-government, war on terror supporting, bought and paid for big business republican who wants us all to establish a religious state. Vote as you wish, but Hossman, you sure shouldn’t be calling yourself an expert.

Weaselope, well answered!

Hah! my prediction about Barack Obama winning came true.

@weaselope: I think Hossman has given more than enough sensible answers to call himself an expert. (proof: his core and his sensibly long answers)

As for the Ron Paul argument, Ron Paul will never win the Presidential election no matter what the fanboys claim about how Ron Paul will change America . My suggestion to all you Ron Paul supporters is to do some actual research on Ron Paul (not by reading his wikipedia article or by watching a 10 minute documentary clip about Ron Paul made my a 13yr old)

We will see. i support Ron Paul because i truly believe in him and his message. If he does not win so be it. I do not believe in the war, the federal reserve, the national ID card, and the proposed NAU to mention a few. Ron Paul is the only one talking about those and they are such big issues!!

Tsk, tsk, weasel, name-calling? You just can’t help but damage yours and Mr. Paul’s credibility, can you? Generally I find such pettiness is the result of a lack of ideas. . .

Again, you refuse to answer the question specifically. Name one way your rights have been impeded by the Patriot Act that is new. Don’t just say “invasion of privacy” or “elimination of due process.” Be specific. How has the Patriot Act affected you? Because I’m a lawyer, I’ve read the Patriot Act, and there really is nothing new there that wasn’t already being done without proper legislative authorization. Why is the Bush administration getting such heat? Because they had the decency to actually admit they were doing what prior administrations concealed (of both parties) and they had the decency to actually enact the law constitutionally rather than just using secretive executive orders.

Before you just blither and whine, have you actually read the law? I doubt it, as you appear to be one of those knee-jerk reactionaries who is merely repeating the thoughts of others. Try using your own brain rather than the thoughts of others.

Your legal ignorance is amazing. Closing a real estate sale wasn’t any easier during the bubble years, and my career extended both before and after the bubble. Your dog could close a sale? While perhaps his legal acumen exceeds yours, but there’s a reason lawyers are required to receive training. I’m always amused by the people who belittle lawyers until their foolishness makes them need the assistance of a lawyer..

As for being an expert? I never called Mr. Paul unAmerican. But his ideas are old, and they are designed to scare people with their “conspiracy” fringe appeal. I guess my biggest bone to pick with you Paul Moonies is you think he is the political Messiah. None of this is new. Try checking out the John Birch Society (been around for decades). Ideas sound familiar? As far as being an expert, I’ve worked for former U.S. Rep. and presidential candidate Phil Crane. If you check, I’ll think you’ll find Mr. Crane had almost all the same ideas as Paul, but decades earlier.

You know, I’d suggest before you start the personal attacks, you read some of my other posts here. I do know what I’m talking about in this area. You make such leaping assumptions. . . why on earth would you say “your pres Mr. Bush”. . . if you’re implying I am a Bush supporter, or a Republican or Republican supporter for that matter, you’ve guessed wrong. I have voted Republican, I have worked for Republicans, but even those I have worked for have known I am not a Republican. As for this election, so far, I don’t have a horse in this race.

weaselope, you’re still not doing Mr. Paul any good here. As for blowhard? I’ll rest on the body of posts I have made here long before you found this site. http://fluther.com/disc/4875/wheres-hossman/

I know, you feel threatened, you feel picked on, you’re just not used to someone applying logic to facts and not being impressed by your ability to mimic the thoughts of others. Perhaps what is going to turn off the average American voter to Mr. Paul, more than anything else, is the histrionics of people like you. It is this type of frenetic fanatic that makes Paul supporters give off that Krishna vibe. chris6137, at least, is genuinely looking for new ideas with an open mind, but some of you other Paulites here exhibit the rabid touchiness and obdurate fanaticism of your average Brown Shirt.

Let me just use one example of the ignorance in your post above (there are many, but I don’t want you to feel picked on). Let us deconstruct your statement “A sales tax would. . .eliminate the collection problem. . .would eliminate a bureaucracy.”

How on earth would forcing the majority of federal revenue to come from sales tax eliminate a collection problem? It certainly would transfer much of it from the IRS to the businesses collecting the sales tax. Is that what you prefer? While it might not be a big deal to GM, how about that mom and pop quickie mart down the street? A huge burden has already been placed on business to collect income tax, Social Security and Medicare and child support from their employees, now you want to add a greater sales tax burden?

And if this is going to be the primary source of revenue, surely they aren’t just going to tax goods, services will not be far behind. So now doctors, dentists, accountants, maid services, etc., which are not collecting taxes for the government will have to do so, resulting in a greater burden on business, and of course the cost of the additional time and paperwork will be passed on to you.

And since the government would now be relying on the honesty of business to collect, report and pay over these taxes (just like they do with much of the income tax) there will need to be, surprise, surprise, a bureaucracy JUST LIKE THE IRS to make sure that business does it correctly. So where is the reduction in bureaucracy? This is what I meant by Paul and the mindless drones of his supporters (not all of them) ignoring unintended consequences.

And here’s a bigger unintended consequences. I know you’ll find it blowhardy to cite facts and historical precedent, but do you recall Prohibition? How about the war on drugs? Untaxed tobacco smuggling? Which has created ATF, DEA and other bureaucracies? If you are going to be vastly increasing sales taxes, the incentive to smuggle untaxed goods will be increased. Which will create not only a need for enforcement, but since many of these goods would be coming from Canada and Mexico, will funnel black market dollars out of the U.S., provide greater financial incentive to the Mob and other organized crime, and place an even greater burden on our already porous borders. And if we can’t stop, say, black market large screen TVs from getting across the border, we won’t be able to stop a terrorist or dirty bomb on the same truck.

And don’t think this burden will be borne by the wealthy. Just as the luxury tax (an increased sales tax on high cost consumer goods, I know I probably need to explain these details, keep up, OK?) was an immense failure in bringing in revenue from the wealthy, so will higher tariffs and sales taxes fail to tax the wealthy. Why? Because the wealthy will just purchase these items abroad and bring them back to the U.S. The luxury tax did nothing but kill the domestic yacht-building and other luxury industries, and took more money overseas. Is this what Mr. Paul wants?

I can’t let another one of your glaring errors pass without comment. You say: “The President, however, as a leader of the most powerful nation/economy, can exert tremendous influence over the currency markets and the players that trade there, and if you think otherwise that is naive.” Um, your own naivete is showing. Actually, the President has practically no influence over currency markets and traders in currency. Don’t believe me? I refer you to the biographies and autobiographies of Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter and Ford. Would you accept them as experts on presidential power? One of the recurring themes of each and every president (Clinton particularly) has been their frustration with having practically no control over monetary policy and currency markets. If you were one of the posters I respected, I would take the time to pull one or two of these books off the shelf and give you an actual cite.

You said in the same section: “Laws can be passed which place limits on new currency circulation also, just like Nixon passed laws which removed such restrictions. Another softball. I thought you were knowledgeable on law, government and the economy? It doesn’t seem that way to me.”

Now, before you suggest I am not knowledgeable, can you find the basic error in knowledge of the branches of government in your quote here? Go on, give it a shot. . . Give up? In all fairness to you, almost 20% of the high school juniors I taught last year got it wrong on their test as well. Give up? Presidents don’t pass laws. The legislative branch passes laws. Remember, I said the President had little to do with international currency trade.

And you’ve left unanswered my question about why alternate currencies are necessary. Care to give it a shot? Or are you still searching youtube for a relevant video?

All of this aside, I do think it is great Paul is running. As chris6137 recognized quite a while ago, there are aspects of Paul’s platform (I hesitate to call them HIS ideas) that I certainly have long-term familiarity with, in fact, I grew up with them being discussed by various activists and political fringe types at our dinner table. That is how I know he is retreading old tires. He and Kucinich certainly keep things from being boring, and I do appreciate his presence stimulates conversation about relatively obscure issues I otherwise would not get to discuss.

I would like to briefly address johnpowell’s and mirza’s suggestions Paul is a racist. While he certainly has made some indiscreet comments which would suggest he is a racist, and while he appears to be getting the support of many racists, I’m not sure Paul is an “intentional” racist.

While I cannot know what truly lies in his heart and mind, the comments he has made, given the generation and region he is from, and the environment that undoubtedly created him, I suspect he is more likely to have a dated way of viewing people of other races, and a dated way of expressing those views. Some of his “racist” statements, while politically incorrect, are like many stereotypes in that they are based upon a grain of truth.

As an example, my mother was by no means racist, she had a kind heart for all people. But she did grown up on a dirt poor tobacco farm in rural Kentucky during the Depression, and was a product of that environment. It took many years for her to break herself of the habit of referring to African-Americans as “colored.” There was no meanness in it at all, just habit. I suspect Paul may have some poor and embarrassing “race habits,” for lack of a better term. I have yet to see anything to suggest he is actively and intentionally racist.

@weaselope
I am all about Ron Paul. I head the meetup group in Sussex Co. NJ. I have had my spats with Hossman. Although I dont necessarily agree with everything he says about Paul, he has legitimate arguments, backs up his answers with facts, and never disrespects people. I have a really good job and dont see my life getting easier with anyone except Paul.
I dont know if I would call Hossman an expert, but who really is an expert? Experts arent always right. You can learn something new from anyone. Sometimes, you just learn more from some. I know it gets frustrating arguing Paul’s talking points(even if they arent his ideas) with people, I do agree with Hossman that you are giving him a bad name by acting this way. It appears that you are relatively new to this site, please stop acting this way, as the only thing I see happening , is you getting frustrated and leaving. This is an excellent site and has people from all different backgrounds, with all different beliefs. That is the main reason why I like coming here and talking politics. It is unbiased and real. It really has become a community to me and the more the merrier. There is enough hate throughout the world. Lets not bring it here.

That is very good and real and honest of you, chris6137. And I see I have yet again permitted myself to be drawn way off the topic of the thread, so as a personal promise to you, chris, I’m not going to even look at this thread again. I’m sure we’ll see each other on other threads. And I appreciate your devotion to your positions, and your open-mindedness. I wouldn’t even characterize our differences, at least your conduct of them, as “spats,” you’ve always been more gracious than that.

Hossman, we are in the primarys, who are you supporting? Has anyone watched End Game, and if so, any comments?

What a debate! Dr. Paul shines!

Response to Hossman’s supposed points (with no reference to blowhardiness):

So Hoffman is a “lawyer” and read the Patriot Act, and can’t see how it affects his civil liberties. Well, I don’t think you need to be a lawyer to know that. Easing of warrant for search requirements is an obvious, large, easy target, as are relaxed surveillance rules, but I already mentioned those. Those are parts of the civil liberties that we are supposedly protecting by being Patriots, so why weaken them with legislation called the “patriot act”? It should be repealed IMHO. Oh, and I am a lawyer, too. I will say that very few lawyers have read the Patriot Act, and even very few of the Congressmen who voted on it have (see Farenheit 911) but kudos if you actually have done so.

You say I personally attack, then claim that all I do is “blither and whine” and that I haven’t read the law. Well, for well over a decade, all I do, 60+ hours a week is practice law. I don’t work in the peripheral fields such as real estate closings or things of that nature. So, yes, I am well aware of the law. I practice in California, the hardest state in the union to get a law license, which I obtained on my first try. So, if you want to rise above personal attacks and claim the moral high ground, do it, don’t just give it lip service and make incorrect and childish attacks because I don’t agree with your point of view. Saying you are a “Blowhard” pales in comparison.

As to whether a sales tax is workable, it is no more unworkable than an income tax. One can also change the law to tax services under an income tax system like we have now; I therefore find that argument unpersuasive. I do think the collection of taxes, and the verification of their payment, would be simplified. Sure, not all collection issues would be eliminated, but the calculation of the amounts owed sure would be a lot easier. You want to downsize government, get it off the backs of people, and business, well, here’s your chance. As a 50% owner of the law firm I work for, and therefore a small businessman, I’d welcome it.

As to the wealthy purchasing items abroad, sure, I guess you can always go oversees and buy things. I don’t think you can go oversees and buy everything however, and there can be ways that such purchases are declared.

Next your tirade goes on to brag about whorking for Phil Crane. Nice. I worked for the Justice Department prior to law school. Again, stop with the chest beating and personal attacks and stick to the issues.

I agree the borders are too pourous. If you look at dr. Paul’s positions he favors changing that. He isn’t an open borders-nafta fanatic, quite the opposite.

Next, you say I make a “glaring error” in saying the President of the US can influence the players in the currency market. Then you drop the hint that you don’t practice law but teach high school, I note (and I wouldn’t care, if you weren’t chest beating and condescending so regularly in your post otherwise). Well, of course the Executive Branch doesn’t pass legislation. But a President, elected on a platform, has a lot of clout and influence and can and does get his ideas put into legislation by Congress which can then pass such laws. Reagan did it, they all did it. Why does that surprise you? Geo Bush even influenced Congress to give him the authority to declare war on Iraq! And, of course, the so-called “fourth branch of government”, that of the executive branch agencies, governs with delegations of power from Congress, so it isn’t exactly true that the executive branch has no lawmaking authority, in the broadest sense of the phrase, in the modern era (post-depression years).

I welcome a response that is civil and sticks to the issues….

Not for nothing, but Dr. Paul NEVER said he would replace the income tax with a sales tax. He wants to replace it with nothing. He wants to cut spending. Mostly oversees. If you are talking about the “fair tax,” you have your candidates confused. Even though the candidate you might be referring to, Mike Huckabee, has been sounding ALOT like Ron Paul these days.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/06/politics/fromtheroad/entry3680193.shtml
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS182557+07-Jan-2008+BW20080107

Well, he has said BOTH it turns out.

From wikipedia:
Paul has stated: “I agree on getting rid of the IRS, but I want to replace it with nothing, not another tax. But let’s not forget the inflation tax.”[66][67] In other statements, he has permitted consideration of a national sales tax as a compromise if the tax need cannot be reduced enough. He has advocated that the reduction of government will make an income tax unnecessary

so, we both stand sort of halfway maybe corrected?

I definitely agree that Huckabee is doing his best to sound like Ron Paul lately, perhaps to pick up his delegates or votes later.

I think Ron Paul’s biggest weakness is in not explaining his viewpoints with an eye to the educational levels and issue awarenesses of the average citizen. People just aren’t conversant on the Federal Reserve Board or on the motivations for the terrorists and go for the easy first-glance observations of Romney and others to the effect that they just hate us for no good reason. One of the candidates even accused him during the abc debate of listening to the terrorists propoganda, which just shows how moronic that particular candidate (guiliani) thinks the average viewer might be.

I am going to stop following all these political Ron Paul threads cause you fans will find a way to prove you are right no matter what. My response to the ron paul issue will be the election results themselves

sounds good mirza. Who is your candidate? Well discuss him/her.

Sorry, weasel, too late to pretend to be civil, which you do poorly. If you are a lawyer, I would expect, frankly, a little higher quality, both in argumentative skill and writing. I’d also suggest a respectable lawyer would have the professional collegiality to not denigrate a colleague’s areas of practice. You passed the California bar? Home of the bar that has resulted in a federal bench most reversed by the Supremes than any other? Passing the bar does not make one a lawyer, my friend. I walked into the Wisconsin bar and passed it without studying for it or knowing a thing about Wisconsin law (not the state I practice in), I wouldn’t say that makes me a competent Wisconsin lawyer.

Further, an attorney would probably have the foresight and brains to not presume my practice was limited to real estate. In fact, that was the smallest portion of my practice. I’m going to stop after this post the one-upsmanship this thread might head down (and I’ll see your Justice Dept. position as a nonattorney and raise you my clerkship for a federal judge), but I’m comfortable stacking my reputation, skill and experience up with any colleague. And quite honestly, a 60% work week and 50% ownership of the firm, those who know me personally here could verify, would to me be slacking. P.S. the word is “working,” not “whorking,” although I like your new word, and from now on intend to combine “working” and “whoring” in like manner when I refer to the work of many in the political world. Thanks for the nifty word.

As an attorney, (and I’ve reread your post, and it just doesn’t read like the work of a member of the bar, which come to think of it, might be a compliment to you) I would expect you to be able to answer a question, but you still haven’t answered mine for you, except to almost admit I was correct in correcting your grade school error about the President not enacting law. As for the Patriot Act, again you evade my point that all of these practices were going on long before the Patriot Act, but unconstitutionally. At least the Patriot Act has given the imprimatur of constitutionality (unless the Supremes start knocking parts off it) to practices that were conducted either under the cloak of executive orders or completely illegally under prior administrations. And while Democrats give lip service, I don’t see anyone on either side of the aisle making a concerted effort to get rid of it. I’m betting there are a lot of reasons for that the American public will never know.

Yes, I do indeed now teach high school after practicing law for over a decade. Whether I will continue to practice law in my spare time, I don’t know. I’ve closed my firm. I find I leave work feeling a lot cleaner. Too much litigation leaves rings around the tub.

And I have to go with mirza. Except for chris (and rather than reading me, would you please read his post 7 or so posts above here) most of the Paul Moonies (and I give that name to those of you frothing around the ballot box) have been an ill-mannered lot, thus I join mirza in no longer reading your posts (except for chris). Seriously, you guys are gonna turn away more potential voters than you attract. And I sincerely mean that as a positive suggestion.

I did see Mr. Paul on Leno last night, and he seemed affable, and a touch wacked, but in a fun way. I still am not sure he has a good idea of what “Constitutional” means, but at least he’s talking about it.

So fire away, I’m scrolling past you now, so it’s open season on me. I’m betting everybody else is sick of us. Or you could comment to me personally. I might read it unless it gets too sloppy.

Awww, hossman got his feelings hurt. Hey, you threw around the accusations of others being ignorant and drinking kool aid if they didn’t agree with you. I am sorry that you can’t swallow your own medicine.

As much as you try to throw stones, you know it is quite easy to throw them back. Since you prefer to roll around in the gutter, it’s pretty easy to respond to.

As for Ron Paul not knowing as much as YOU do about the constitution, that speaks more to your qualifications than anything anyone else could say about you. If you actually listen to what he has to say (instead of preferring a more neocon “party platform” candidate and refusing to accept anything outside that box) you’ll find that what he says is very similar to what Reagan or Goldwater said. In fact, Goldwater has endorsed him!

I don’t encourage everyone who starts law school to be a lawyer, or everyone who begins in the profession to continue in it. However, those who claim to have left volitionally are many and those who really did so are few. If you have a viable practice the financial rewards outstrip public school teaching and part-time practice. I am sure that you have learned that. If you prefer that lifestyle, that’s fine.

I love representing people that really need a lawyer, that have a true case, and who need someone who believes in them and in it. If you’ve never won a trial, you perhaps don’t know the highs this profession can give its members.

The California bar is about twice as hard (in terms of passing rates) as Wisconsin. It’s a fact.

The California courts are not overturned more by the Supreme Court. The 9th Federal Circuit, which includes the entire states of Alaska and Hawaii as well, is the most overturned.

I have already answered your question, twice, about the civil rights issues with the Patriot Act. I, as a lawyer, also know you’re (about 90% chance of) fibbing when you claim to have read it. But if you don’t know that, read the paper. Almost anyone can google the patriot act and find a whole lot of material written on this very topic. I don’t know what more to say, it is probably the one issue that the public knows more about from a constitutional standpoint than almost any other (as relates to modern legislation).

If I am a Mooninite, I’ll happily go vote that way, as will Goldwater and a few others. At the very worst, Ron Paul will influence this corrupt party to move away from its bastardized present neo-con, bought-and-paid-for state into something more like what it was before. and if it doesn’t the Republican party will be something you teach your kids about in class. The real Moonies are those that think the Iraq war was a good idea, that there is nothing to criticize the country over (Romney) or that classical republican ideas and principles (note I don’t claim they are new) are “crazy.”

My apologies if that isn’t lawyerly enough for you. I’ve got to prepare for a mediation on a large environmental case. Maybe if it settles soon, I’ll have the time to address your sniping as it comes off of your underemployed, bitter, jealous keyboard, you brainwashed cave ape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8TkmE5t1Pk
Come on, how can you not love this guy. I love that fox includes him in this debate, tries to make him look stupid, and he blows them away.

I think, chris, part of the difficulty he faces is that, whether you like him and what he says or not, certainly you must admit he speaks differently than the other candidates, and what we are used to hearing from candidates. Because he is different than what many people have come to expect, many of those people will find that difference unsettling, or inappropriate, or in some manner unacceptable. Just as if you went through the drive-through at McDonald’s, and was served Wendy’s french fries, even if you ordinarily like Wendy’s fries, it wouldn’t seem right.

For better or worse, this creates a sort of institutional pressure for candidates to conform to established practice. Anything different opens itself up for attack.

And I apologize, chris, I just remembered I promised you I wouldn’t be coming back to this thread, so I better click on “Stop Following.” See you elsewhere.

Your insight is always welcome, Hossman.

@SquirrelEStuff I am a resident of Roselle and don’t know where your information is coming from. If you’ve ever lived here you would know a few things, 1. Roselle is not an inner city, it is a borough and it is suburban. 2. The median household income is well above the national average as well as the average of “inner city’s” 3. Most of the residents, probably 80–90% own the homes they live in and the crime rate is low, Union, NJ has a higher crime rate than Roselle, check your facts before you post ignorance online. Yes, Roselle is predominately an African-American town but what you described sounds like Elizabeth which is a neighboring inner city. Maybe you lived there and didn’t realize it because I’ve never seen gangs anywhere in town. The bit about police not being able to do anything when they see people smoking blunts because of potential racial profiling claims? Wow, are you serious with that one? A crime is a crime, police will not hesitate to enforce the law if they see people smoking weed. Get your head checked. References: Wikipedia.com & city-data.com as well as personal experience.