I had not previously mentioned Ron Paul. It is difficult to address just how far from rational his positions are, without giving them far more attention than they deserve. In short, however, his views on National Security show he is more in line with Michael Moore than Bill Roggio, his sense of the War in Iraq shows he is more in tune with Alec Baldwin than General Petraeus, and his views on the Economy show he is far more aligned with Karl Marx than Milton Friedman. At best, Congressman Ron Paul is sadly uneducated and misguided. At worst, he is dangerously unbalanced.

Everything in this paragraph is 100% incorrect. Where are you getting this "information"? Take a few moments to research your subject, why don't you. Wow.

This could be fun. OK, swf, how about you make a case for Congressman Ron? And do support your contentions, please, since you are so emphatic about "research".

thanks for pointing out no one is owed a vote.
the rnc doesn't get this point.
you're lucky to have a lab and a collie.

How about Ann Coulter, for VP, or AG. That'll be sure to get Kennedy, Murtha etc hitting the sauce before their typical noon cocktail hr. I would love to see her as Press Secretary.

I don't usually plug my own site here, Dave, but if you want to see my dogs, go to

http://stolenthunder.blogspot.com

The dogs are my title banner. And yes, I am lucky, they're both great dogs!

ok, just for starters...

his views on the Economy show he is far more aligned with Karl Marx than Milton Friedman.

http://powderbluereport.blogspot.com/2006/11/ron-paul-tribute-to-milton-friedman.html

"We cannot suspend the laws of economics or the principles of human action any more than we can suspend the laws of physics. Yet this is precisely what Congress attempts to do time and time again, no matter how many times history proves them wrong or economists easily demonstrate the harms caused by a certain policy. The nation would be well-served if Congress spent more time reading the works of Milton Friedman, and less time worrying about petty party spoils." -- Ron Paul (11/20/06)

Strike one, swf. Just because he praises Friedman, does not mean Paul understands him or follows his precepts. Paul opposes globalization, for example, something strongly promoted by Friedman. Friedman understood that gold is only one commodity and is used only as a hedge against inflation, while Paul wants to base our economy on it. Friedman understood deficit spending is sometimes the appropriate measure for a government to shake a recession, while Paul opposes it in all instances.

Care to try again?

Karl Marx..wtf? Paul = Von Mises, Friedman, Rothbard and Says - you've been hitting too much of those Keynesian crosses bro! S'ok though - we can learn ya :)

Back it up then, Aaron. After all, Obama praised Reagan, but no one would confuse Barack for a Reaganite by his policies.

Paul may 'talk' Friedman, but his policies are pure Luddite!

Just because he praises Friedman, does not mean Paul understands him or follows his precepts. Paul opposes globalization, for example, something strongly promoted by Friedman.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q5MDM2NzZkNzU5ZDEwYTI3ODg5YjY2YWZlMjFkYTc=

"Paul deplores the federal deficit, but insists the only way "to solve that problem is to cut spending, not to raise taxes -- or to not lower taxes when you get a chance." As a first step he advocates the elimination of all taxes on capital -- estates, capital gains, interest income, and dividends. ...

he out-Reagans Reagan in his unwavering opposition to the government regulation of business. He may have seemed like a nut when he was one of only three congressmen to vote against the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. But weren't the real nuts the conservative congressmen who got swept up in a witch-hunt against "corporate crooks," and voted to impose the most sweeping, burdensome, anti-competitive, and costly financial regulation in a generation?

Paul is an advocate of free trade -- to a fault. He believes deeply in unrestricted trade between people and nations. Yet he votes against free-trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA because he believes that trade is a right, not a gift for Congress to bestow in certain circumstances. Without such agreements, the reality is that trade is probably less free than it is with them. Is Paul a nut for letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? Perhaps, but for Paul it's a point of principle. He told me, "I don't call them free-trade agreements; I call them managed trade agreements." Instead, Paul would like to see a simple policy of "low and uniform" tariffs for all products from all nations.

Perhaps the most unusual element of Paulonomics is the idea of abolishing the Federal Reserve." -- Don Luskin

https://www.reason.com/news/show/38384.html

"Reason: But it would be preferable to abolish the Fed entirely and just have government stick to a monetary growth rule?

[Milton] Friedman: Yes, it's preferable."

DJ lives in Texas?

Luddite? Not quite sure how so but would be interested in your expouding upon that assertation!

See Paul's Economic Plan - below is from section 3: Monetary Policy -

3. Monetary Policy Reform

Televise Federal Open Market Committee Meetings. An institution as powerful as the Federal Reserve deserves full public scrutiny.

Expand Transparency and Accountability at the Federal Reserve
Pass H.R. 2754 to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to continue to make available to the public on a weekly basis information on the measure of the M3 monetary aggregate and its components.

Return Value to Our Money. Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency. Level the long-term boom and bust business cycle by passing H.R. 4683, which would repeal provisions of the federal criminal code relating to issuing coins of gold, silver, or other metal for use as current money and making or possessing likenesses of such coins.

It's much easier to say "return to the gold standard" than to introduce the idea of competing currencies - can you image McCanekilledAbel trying to understand that concept!!! Wowwee..that would've been fun!

"and his views on the Economy show he is far more aligned with Karl Marx than Milton Friedman"

You'll never live this one down, unfortunately. Your grandchildren will be hearing about the time their grandpa made the most ignorant comment ever posted about a presidential candidate on the internet.

This is all rehash, but given all the blind support for any person who gets the Republican nomination I might vote for McCain just to help prove how bad an idea that is. Yes, the democrats will be a disaster, but that's what's needed to wake up the American electorate and sweep the democrats from power. Then and only then can America move forward as the leader of the free world.

Lots of assertions, but still no back-up. Here's a clue - Paul is not a suitable authority to legitimize his own claims!

Let's start with the deficit. Do you know what Adam Smith said about Trade Deficits? It's not what Paul says!

As to gold, a history question not for debate but one you should look up, is why did EVERY nation on the planet abandon the 'gold standard'? Hint - it's the same reason mercantilism is a failure. I also find it amusing that none of the Paulites explains how enough gold will be made available to meet the economic demands, or how - given his 'you cannot fight the laws of economics' - Paul seriously thinks he can control the conomy through subjective imposition of a control commodity.

Asinine, at best.

I also note the only defense presented by the Paulites is a weak economic argument. I guess you accept the points regarding Paul's foreign policy resume and defense positions. That at least is wise ...

I will give you this - in ideal, Paul is much closer to Menger than Marx, though I suspect you are confusing Marx's teachings with Lenin in their practice.

Clueless for McCain: "I am not one of those screaming extremists who would pretend that a Democrat in the White House is anything but a catastrophe and a direct threat to the ideals of America."

You really don't see the irony of you spitting out "screaming extremists" at those who say they will not support McCain. It doesn't even register as a bit hypocritical that your previous criticisms of McCain, which you proudly admit to owning are now screaming extremism, patriotism questioning and reputation trashing.

It's clear where the spit is coming from and who is on the edge of an anger induced stroke. McCain denialists are not the ones who are freaking out. They are making a sober assessment of the direction their current political party is taking and using an otherwise losing vote to influence that direction.

Talk about selective attention, mikey.

Go look up 'context'.

and his views on the Economy show he is far more aligned with Karl Marx than Milton Friedman.

Well, I'll be doggoned. Hayek and Von Mises are Marxists? I learn something new every day on internet.

Excuse me while I indulge in a huge belly laugh.

Before I go, let me point out that the major difference between Friedman and Hayek and Von Mises is that Friedman was a monetarist. He supported centralized control (recognize the Marxist language--"central control?" ) of the value of currency via the Federal Reserve--as long as the Reserve would act within certain bounds. Sadly, as is true of all central planners, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve--being fallible human beings--resorts to expediency over adherence to principle (Friedman's prohibition on more than 3% growth in the money supply) That's why one of the tenets of Conservatism has been the absolute need for checks and balances in every realm--which central control does not provide-- because we are fallible human beings who cannot be perfected while on this earth.

So, I would revise your sentence as follows:

"and his views on the Economy, with respect to monetary policy, show Milton Friedman to be far more aligned with Karl Marx than Hayek, Von Mises--or Dr. Ron Paul."

Oh, did I mention the fifth plank of the Communist Manifesto?

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly

Since you are having trouble understanding how claiming to be Friedman is a bit off from actually pursuing his policies, let me ask you a simple question, Jerri - why do people but Treasury Bonds?

If you understand this, you'll already be ahead of Ron Paul.

"A real gold standard is thoroughly consistent with [classical] liberal principles and I, for one, am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development." -- Milton Friedman

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0399b.asp

Besides, Ron Paul is not calling for a return to the gold standard, but simply to allow competing currencies (including gold and silver)....

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/prosperity

"Return Value to Our Money. Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency. Level the long-term boom and bust business cycle by passing H.R. 4683, which would repeal provisions of the federal criminal code relating to issuing coins of gold, silver, or other metal for use as current money and making or possessing likenesses of such coins."

While Paul believes it was a mistake to abandon the gold standard, I don't think you'll find anything in his campaign platform calling for a return to it.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q5MDM2NzZkNzU5ZDEwYTI3ODg5YjY2YWZlMjFkYTc=

"...as a first step toward eliminating the Fed, Paul advocates "legalizing competition -- allow gold and silver to circulate with the dollar, and take off all the taxes on gold and silver money."

Ah, gold! The mere mention of it in today's modern economy brands you as a nut, or at least an economic hick. But remember, American money was linked to gold in one way or another for most of our history, until 1971 in fact. In his first year in office as president, Ronald Reagan established a blue-ribbon commission to investigate a possible return to gold. It went nowhere, but was Reagan a nut to ask the question? More fundamentally, is there anything nutty about money that would be, as Paul advocates, "convertible and redeemable in something of real value"?" -- Don Luskin

As for foreign policy, if you're in favor of undeclared, unconstitutional, "preemptive" wars that kill and maim thousands of american soldiers and close to a million Iraqis (not to mention sqandering billions of tax dollars) -- I can't help you there. McCain is your man. Even your dog has more sense than that.

swf, at last the colors come out.

"undeclared" - Congress passed the resolution authorizing the war. And repeatedly funded it. Also, the UN passed a resolution which authorized the resumption of hostilities. So, your claim there is bogus.

"unconstitutional" - sorry, but just because you do not like a war, does not make it 'unconstitutional', especially given the extraordinary steps taken by Bush to involve all stakeholders.

"pre-emptive" - yet another fave lie from the Left. The war was a resumption from the first Gulf War, and Iraq repeatedly violated key provisions of the cease-fire.

'killing and maiming' - 50 million people freed in 2 countries, versus the rape rooms, torture prisons and mass graves under the old regimes. It says something when someone sides with the monsters, just because their BDS has gotten too extreme to control anymore.

This was a good war. Unpopular, but the right thing to do even so. I am truly sad for you, that you cannot understand this basic fact.

"Since you are having trouble understanding how claiming to be Friedman is a bit off from actually pursuing his policies, let me ask you a simple question, Jerri - why do people but Treasury Bonds?"

What? I don't understand your comment. I was responding to your claim that Ron Paul's positions are Marxist as opposed to being in alignment with Milton Friedman (whom I assumed you consider to be free enterprise--which he was except in monetary policy).

I will make one observation on the issue of treasury securities. Abu Dhabi recently "invested in" (bailed out), Citicorp rather than buying treasury securities. They chose to put their money in a failing bank over U.S. Treasuries, based on an argument that they were "diversifying". So, they found a failing bank a more attractive investment than U.S. Treasuries. I find that disturbing.

Ok, I think my dog is better than John McCain too, but then my dog isn't old enough to qualify as president. (He is only 3, or 21 in dog years).

I might make a better President than McCain, but I am not sure about it. I do know that I would be head and shoulders above hillary or Obama.

I agree with DJ. SVF's true colors have come to the surface. GW hatred is the main motivator for all actions by the left and most Paulites. ww

As a Christian I am constantly amazed with the conservative Christians who are gung ho for an unprovoked, immoral, unethical, un-just-by-every-measure-of-the-theory war. Amazing...tell me DJ - who would Jesus bomb?

Nice duck, Aaron. Before you judge, ask yourself how you will justify your own hatred?

And how is it 'just' to stand for the dictators, the torture rooms, the groups of men who drag women off the street to rape and kill, and who cut the heads off victims on TV to promote their agenda?

THOSE are the people you stand by.

This was a good war. Unpopular, but the right thing to do even so.

I am sad for you too, sir.

And by the way, noted "leftist" Pat Buchanan also disagrees with you...

"Is the United States about to launch a second preemptive war, against a nation that has not attacked us, to deprive it of weapons of mass destruction that it does not have? ...

Congress thus has the time to do the constitutional duty it failed to do when it gave Bush his blank check to invade Iraq at a time of his choosing. ...

The "Bush Doctrine" notwithstanding, if Congress has not put the "military option on the table," neither George Bush nor John McCain can put it there. That is the Constitution still, is it not?"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan35.html

Citibank is a "failing bank"?!?!?!?!?!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

OK Jerri, Treasuries were too complex for you. I will try to make the Citibank deal even easier for you.

Do you ever buy things on sale?

DJ - I don't hate anyone...not sure how you inferred that from any of my posts...

The deal is though, brother, that these types of atrocities occur around the globe all the time...why are we not in Kenya at this moment? why not China where there are forced abortions, etc? How about Saudi Arabia where a female who commits adultry is put to death, young girls set on fire for disobeying their fathers? Why not Darfur?

And exactly how does that correlate to a Marxist monetary policy? Still waiting....

my posts are now being moderated? hmmm... vast anti-Ron Paul conspiracy alert!!!!! (sarcasm)

So, Aaron says if you can't help everyone, you should not help anyone.

You still have not explained how supporting Saddam and Al Qaeda is 'just'.

Paranoia time! Who's 'moderating' you, svf? I have not touched any of the comments.

Watch out for those 'black helicopters'. Halliburton, you know!

Oh and Aaron, I merely answered your foreign policy screed. The ball is still in your court to defend Paul's econ-fantasies, though that seems a tall order to me.

Maybe you can answer what Jerri can't: Why do people buy Treasury Bonds?

my response to your "true colors" gotcha comment...

Thank you for commenting. Your comment has been received and held for approval by the author.

To protect against comment spammers, we have enabled features that moderate certain comments. This can happen for a number of reasons:

If you exceed a predetermined number of URL links in your comment.

Your comment is on an older story - especially if there hasn't been activity on the comment thread for a while.

If your comment contains questionable content or links to blocked sites.

If your comment comes from a suspect IP address.

Assuming your comment is not spam, we will approve your comment when time permits; there is no need to re-post your comment. Comments to older stories that add no value to the existing comment thread may not be approved.

Why do people buy Treasury Bonds?

"The federal government issues U.S. Treasury bonds to finance its deficit spending. The largest holders of those Treasury notes-- our largest creditors-- are foreign governments and foreign individuals. Asian central banks and investors in particular, especially China, have been happy to buy U.S. dollars over the past decade. But foreign governments will not prop up our spending habits forever. Already, Asian central banks are favoring Euro-denominated assets over U.S. dollars, reflecting their belief that the American economy is headed for trouble. It's akin to a credit-card company cutting off a borrower who has exceeded his credit limit one too many times." -- Ron Paul (10/25/04)

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst102504.htm

Odd. Any "questionable content" links?

only if you consider Pat Buchanan "questionable content" (which could be understandable...)

Also a comment about T-Bills was "moderated" too... Maybe I'm posting "too much"... oh well!

rofl...evidently DJ is a Faux News a la Hannity hack -

OK, I went into the system and found them. Something called 'Akismet' (an automated spam filter) decided they were 'spam'. I think it's because you started with 'blockquote'.

As to their content, I have to say again that I do not consider Ron Paul a valid source to authenticate Ron Paul's opinions. As to Buchanan, not all Conservatives are good people, and that's all I will say about that.

I see Aaron has devolved to personal insults, how Christian of him.

I really would like you to consider the questions I posted, because they speak to the heart of the issue:

Why do people but Treasury Bonds?

and

Do you ever buy things on sale?

jesus would bomb the money lenders in the temple. that passage alway stuck out for me, because i had always heard growing up that jesus was for turning the other cheek, and for peaceful action. yet, here he was, beating and driving the money lenders out of the temple.

making precious metal currency isn't a huge deal to me one way or another. as long as the value of the currency is related to the value of the precious metal that it is made from. however, a precious metal, or other commodity, based currency, and thus economy, is just plain DUMB.

i heard this past weekend that it really isn't isolationalism that paul wants, it's non-interventialism. but he wants to pull back all of our troops everywhere in the world back home, not spend any money trying to influence others in our interests, and would abrogate any ability to project US economic or military might, that's isolationalism. and it's just DUMB

I am not aware of any scriptural references to incendiary devices or a desire to kill merchants.

You still have not explained how supporting Saddam and Al Qaeda is 'just'.

... unless it's the Reagan administration supporting Saddam and Al Qaeda...?

"The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's... The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983)."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

"As Afghan rebels fought Soviet invaders in the 1980s, the United States gave aid from afar while Saudi exile Osama bin Laden provided support from within Afghanistan. ...

Ronald Reagan, saw Afghanistan as a potential Vietnam for the Soviets' "Evil Empire."

Thousands of Muslim radicals joined the CIA and mujahedeen, including bin Laden, the wealthy son of a Saudi road builder. Though he didn't actually take up arms, he helped build roads and arms depots, using his own funds and CIA money.

"We funded him, we and the Saudis," said Glynn Wood, professor of international policy at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. "He was not seen as any kind of threat until Desert Storm.""

http://archive.capecodonline.com/special/terror/binladen17b.htm

Oh please. I thought you did not go in for conspiracy theories?

You know, you really are NOT making Paul look like a reasonable, mature and rational leader.

So, thanks I guess for proving my point!

uh, prove that these are "conspiracy theories" and not well-established facts..... are you really that delusional?

It's your theory, so you back it up.

Either way though, you just proved Paul is no Reagan Conservative!

uh, the links ARE the backup. and these are not "theories", they are facts.

George Washington University...

Monterey Institute of International Studies...

not exactly "conspiracy theorists", wouldn't you agree?

Actually no, the links are merely assertions, they do not prove anything, except that you are not a Reaganite, and therefore I may reasonably presume that neither is Mr. Paul, despite his claims.

And you are a bit of a naif, if you believe that Academia is free of bias and prejudice. Especially with regard to revisionist history.

You continue to prove my point, that no Conservative would be sane to touch Ron Paul with a 10-foot-pole or support him in a poll, caucus, or primary.

He is delusional, at best. As I said from the start.

It is an historical fact, for example, that Reagan played Iraq and Iran off each other, and at that time Iran presented the greater threat. Support for Iraq, as you should know, ended when evidence of atrocities by Saddam's government came to light, including the use of Chemical Weapons (WMD, by the way) on Kurds in Iraqi territory. This is just one reason why Iraq and Iran fought to a standstill, the war lasting all the way to 1989, and one reason Saddam hated America - we refused to sponsor his dictatorship once we knew what he was doing.

Revisionism is common, but such lies were long ago refuted, only the most deluded and spiteful still believe them.

no Conservative would be sane to touch Ron Paul with a 10-foot-pole or support him in a poll, caucus, or primary.

... except, of course, The American Conservative magazine...?

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/feature.html

... and Gary Johnson? and John Derbyshire? and David Freddoso? and Don Luskin? and Bob Barr? and Thomas DiLorenzo? and Barry Goldwater, Jr.? and... and...

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements

Say what you will about Ron Paul, but he is undeniably the closest thing to a "Reagan Conservative" still running for President in 2008.

"Say what you will about Ron Paul, but he is undeniably the closest thing to a "Reagan Conservative" still running for President in 2008." - svf

After the conspiracy lies you just threw up about Reagan, that is the baldest lie and most hysterical assertion I have seen today!

LMAO!!!

ok, let's see if Ron Paul fits Bob Dole's definition of "Reagan Conservative"...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8008843/

Bob Dole: "A legacy of values, not just a label":

"To me "conservative" is a legacy of values that are at once timeless and vulnerable, not just a label. It is a faith; the humbling perspective that not every change represents progress [check]; a fierce defense of individuals and national freedom [check]; and a healthy skepticism toward institutions too large, too remote, and too impersonal to be truly democratic [check]. Conservatives share the Founders' fears over too much power concentrated in too few hands [check] . We prefer organizing society from the grassroots to dictating it from the top down. [big check]"

just keep on lyao and good luck with that whole McCain thing in 2008...

Just a quick question, svf, since you want Paul so badly to look good ...

were you lying when you compared Paul to Reagan, or where you lying when you said Reagan supported dictators?

Until you clear that one up, I'm afraid it will be hard for us to take you seriously, not that you can really repair that now.

The questions Paulites don't dare answer:

Why do people but Treasury Bonds?

and

Do you ever buy things on sale?

Reality is a problem for Ron Paul, it seems.

The Ron Paul "ideal" campares favorably to the idealistic Reagan Myth that the GOP continues to manipulate and depend upon for credibility.

The Reagan Reality regrettably taints that myth -- how soon we conveniently forget Iran-Contra, the increase in size of Fed Gov't, Supefund scandal, etc.

Unfortunatlely we'll probably never know what a Ron Paul Reality would be like, but an administration more favorable toward Reagan's "conservative" principles would be hard to imagine...

uh, yes. I buy things that are on sale. therefore.............?

Sorry svf, I think you will have a very hard time getting anyone who knew Reagan to agree with you.

As to buying things on sale, apply what you said to Citibank. If you could buy shares of Citi for 80% of what you knew they were worth (i.e., 'on sale'), of course you'd invest in Citi!

Never push conspiracy when the real answer is simple and obvious. It makes good novels, but poor leadership.

Sorry svf, I think you will have a very hard time getting anyone who knew Reagan to agree with you.

except, of course, Pat Buchanan...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55763

"Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq."

ok, gotta go. it's been fun sparring. good luck and I hope you at least gained a little more respect for Dr. Paul (if not for me).

One thing we have in common: I'd vote for either one of my dogs instead of McCain too.

cheers

Yeah. Buchanan. Good luck on his team ...

This piece of work quote from DJ:

"....or where you lying when you said Reagan supported dictators?"

Well lets see. For starters there was Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, Chun in South Korea and best of all the Reagan buddy in iraq.

What was his name? You know, the guy Donny Rumsfeld glad-handed with...he's dead now but I know you'll remember his name DJ if you try hard enough.

If you don't mind I'll give my response in defense of Huckabee.

You do know that the founding fathers fully expected elected officials to have a solid moral foundation. The left always talks about the separation of church and state as though that's written in the constitution; it is not. The only thing they wrote about was to keep government from supporting or endorsing a particular religion; basically forbidding theocracies.

The left has really advanced the idea that the only good president is a secular one. This is in support of progressive ideals which came directly from Karl Marx as did the income tax. Progressives, like Hillary, believe in moral relativism which is basically morals that shift with the circumstances. Here is the left defining it:

http://gadfly.igc.org/progressive/ethical.htm

Now the religious right believes in moral absolutism or a definite set of moral values defined by God. Libertarians and other conservatives on the right not so religiously inclined, like me, tend to believe in moral realism or objectivism; more like logically deduced but definite morals values. For most practical purposes all of the right's moral values are essentially the same and are diametrically opposed to moral relativism. I believe Huckabee brought up his religion because, as he says, it defines who he is which is certainly not a progressive. However, I'm afraid this important distinction is lost on most people or exaggerated into nonsense.

Attacking Bush for "an arrogant bunker mentality" was supposed to be about how he would try to do better by listening to more people like those recommending the surge instead of one person like Rumsfeld. I think he also meant he would try more diplomacy. I do agree it was a bad choice of words. I do believe he would listen to the experts, the generals, and let them do what it takes to win.

If Huckabee could somehow win the nomination, a brokered convention maybe, he could get more air time for the FairTax which could turn it into a mandate if he wins. There is usually a honeymoon period where newly inaugurated presidents can get passed many things they want. If they refuse he could use the bully pulpit to continue to sell the idea and get the citizens to put pressure on congress to pass it.

I do believe the FairTax is the issue that will win the white house for republicans as long as it gets the air time. It can attract many Independents and Democrats because economic growth helps everybody and we absolutely need it to be able to handle our obligations of the entitlement programs. The Democrat candidates are only offering more spending and more taxes on the wealthy which will just slow down our economy even more. The FairTax is non-partisan and gives Conservatives a freer free market and economic growth that they'll love and Liberals get the same and probably more revenues for the big government they love. It has to appeal to both parties to pass and I think it does. Here's a good article by Louis R. Woodhill who is on the Leadership Council of the Club for Growth.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2007/12/the_fair_tax_is_about_economic.html

Looks like we'll be able to lower the rate pretty quickly depending on economic growth. I've read documents that suggest it could be amazing, like 10% - 15%.

Here's some links about the tax hikes that show Huckabee actually raised taxes less than Romney.

http://bradbeblogging.blogspot.com/2008/01/romney-rebuttal-enclosed.html

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004053.html

It looks to me that Huckabee raised consumption taxes and lowered income taxes like a mini version of the FairTax. I believe Romney saying Mike raised taxes $500 million because Mike had that much as a surplus is a lot like saying Reagan doubled taxes because revenues doubled after his tax cuts. I've become very disappointed in conservative pundits this election because it looks like they don't do any research but reading the headlines.

As far as spending goes he did have a mess after Clinton and Tucker and a court order to improve education. He also had to work with a state full of Clinton Democrats, around 86%, and I'm sure he had to do a little give and take. It was very similar for Reagan when he was governor of California. This stuff is not too hard to find on the internet. I think Mike prefers spending what air time he can talking about what he wants to do instead of defending what he had to do.

Is Huckabee a perfect candidate? Of course not, no one is. However, he does have some good qualities; for instance, he's a great communicator, not like Reagan, but in his own way. I sometimes think that's one of the most important roles of a president because so many things need to be explained to the people like the FairTax.

I hope Huckabee wins the nomination, but it will probably take some wheeling and dealing at a brokered convention. While the pundits are saying Huckabee needs 83% of the vote to win they are ignoring he and Ron Paul only need 60% to force a brokered convention. I'll keep my fingers crossed because I can taste that economic growth of the FairTax already.

Why do people but Treasury Bonds?

So I ask, I know why people buy T-Bills (not BUT). For the individual it is to save, for a nation it is to store wealth, and/or to equalize the value of their currency on the open market. However, when a nation, China, pegs their currency to another that causes distortions. This has to occur by the other country either buying assets in the country with a deficit or to print more of their own currency to buy US backed assets.

Buying something on sale? Hmm. I do buy items on sale, the question was of a liquidity issue, for city bank and they were troubled and needed a quick infusion of capital. Time will tell if there is a major liquidity crisis in the near future, or not.

You stated that Ron Paul was against globalization. I disagree, from my perspective he is not. He is simply against managed trade agreements. Take CAFTA, which requires US law to come into relation with CODEX rules (look it up if you need but I am not sourcing the information for you). This causes me to track all of my animals from birth to death, sending all information to the government.

You also state we should intervene in other nations affairs when there is a despot or torture. So what do we do when we ourselves lack the transparency to know wether or not we torture. With the elimination of habeus corpus, who knows what will happen in this country.

Would it not be wiser for us to focus on the war on terror, by trying to stop the Saudi Madrasas which instill the desire to be a terrorist? If we started focusing on an energy initiative in the US, we could eliminate our dependence on oil quickly. That would dry up the funds for the Saudis to buy weapons, though we might still give them to them, to maintain their dictatorship. Which has its currency pegged to the dollar and so are experiencing 10+% inflation today.

I am sorry Paul is wrong in a couple areas, but he makes more sense than the rest.

Peace,

Also on Paul not listening to Patreas. Well Bush did not listen to his General Batiste. So general Batiste retired from the military so he could speak out against his Commander in Chief. This caused him to lose his consulting job he gained after retiring.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/05/11/publiceye/entry2791091.shtml

Also in the posts, I believe you spoke of Paul not being able to manage the economy. I thin that is the point, left to its own devices the economy will get along very well. People will have to be personally responsible and bear the consequences of poor investing themselves.

The government has helped in crafting legislation which will benefit corporations. The mortgage interest deduction, set up to encourage home ownership. Seems like a good idea, and yet, coupled with 401ks IRAs which require that you invest in some one else's company as opposed to saving in your own home.

We live with managed trade and really have not had much free trade. We have definitely not had a government that protected private property, and has for the most part governed to protect special interests.

Peace,

1.) Ron Paul is crazy. Nuff said.
2.) John McCain is asking Conservatives to do that which he has not done in the past. He has bucked the party and conservatives numerous times and now he is asking us not to buck the party. Sorry Johnny Boy, I will not be voting for you in november, nor will i be voting for you ever.

If Hillary Clinton herself changed to a Republican and then started talking about how conservative she is and was, i wouldn't vote for her. Same with John McCain. I've heard too many of his lies to start believing him now.

The argument that he's better than hillary and obama begs the question, "Better for what or who?"

John McCain as president won't be good for conservatives, it won't be good for the republican party and won't be good for the country. Likewise, the same can be said about Hillary Clinton and Obama. No matter who wins the presidency, one thing is for damn sure, Conservatives have already lost in the fall. Who cares if McCain wins? I sure don't care who wins now. I'm kind of hoping for Huckabee to pull it out so i can go vote and only partially hold my nose.

Simply I cannot, and will not EVER vote for McCain.

Dr Paul, is only seems crazy until you actually use a few brain cells and think about his positions. We do not need a military base in Thailand doing a study on AIDS, my cousin is doing today.

After reading all this Barbara Striesand of a thread, I think I'll vote for Cody.

That's two for the dog.

Hey,DJ, you DO have a dog in this fight!

I agree with steamdragon's comments.

Cody now has 3 votes cast and is now leading in votes cast for POTUS.

DJ,

You know that I've always been in the 25% club or whatever it is that have been supportive of President Bush. I propose that you make a new thread that takes a sample (not scientific, but still informative and fun) and see what kind of support that President Bush has in light of our likely choices available now. Since it is almost certain that our next President will be either McCain, Obama, or Hillary, how many would prefer that President Bush get another 8 years rather than one of the above?