Ron Paul thinks the Bible dictates Monetary Policy

[Ultonius]

And yet they all attend church in purpose-built buildings, which are never mentioned...

The Amish generally do not have church buildings, instead holding services in private homes. Of course, the term 'fundamentalist' tends to be associated more with evangelical Mainline Protestant groups and most of these denominations do have church buildings, so the point still stands.

[General Brock]

You just BLINDLY believe him?
No home work? No looking into it?
no looking at alternatives? He says it needs to go, thats good enough for you?

Can you see why people call you a "Mindless" Paul Drone?

Well I actually have years of reading about EPA failures and collusion with industry and environmentalists having to fight the EPA to make it do its job contributing to my frustration. Its endemic in any western country; regulatory agencies don't police conflicts of interests, and therefore their actual regulatory charges, very well. It gets worse and worse every year, it seems, with one step forward preceding two steps back.

[General Brock]

I think this accurately sums up why General Brock supports Ron Paul.

(Anti-war)

Well, what's breaking the bank, apart from the banksters? Do you really think all those other programs will survive in their present form just because O-Blam!-Aaaaah will keep raising the debt ceiling? How much longer can that go on anyway? People are hurting and a little scared now, and I don't blame them.

The 1960's and 70's era of protests were almost a luxury; people could afford to protest even when the economy took a bit of a downturn. Today, I'm honestly not sure how many OWS protesters have decent homes and jobs to go back to/look forward to. There have been news stories pointing out that unemployment stats may not include the hopelessly unemployed who just don't count anymore.

[General Brock]

1. Ron Paul is Anti-War and no chickenhawk. When he was drafted, Ron Paul had a wife and two kids, and he went, serving as a flight surgeon from 1963-65 in the USAF.

So what?

... Uh, OK. That used to mean something and now it doesn't. This is a problem. I have no answer or rebuttal.

This is pretty much his only selling point. It is not enough. It might be enough if by electing Ron Paul we could somehow retroactively undo the costs of all those wars, but we cannot. And the war on drugs, in particular, is popular; Paul will have a difficult time convincing law and order politicians that it should end.

The People as a majority may be convinced it should end; that should count more than the politicians who want otherwise.

Blowing up the Fed will cause an immediate round of economic chaos in the US. This is a reason to vote against him. His opposition to bailouts would be nice, except that he's opposed to bailouts because he's opposed to practically all state spending. Since we need welfare to keep the poor from storming the Bastille, that's not good at a time like this. Indeed, it is incredibly bad.

King Louis played nice to the wrong people and it didn't do him much good either. If all that bailout money had gone to the American people as spend-in-America cash cards things might have worked out better. Crass, but not really much different than what actually happened save that the banksters invest overseas.

Ron Paul has also fought against women's and minority rights for decades; his vision of constitutional rights does not match mine, and the fact that we happen to agree on certain points about rights is largely coincidence. Thus, on civil rights, I consider Paul's stance to be a wash- good on some issues, bad on others. The issues he's good on are theoretically more important, but I don't think they're more important in practical reality at the moment, so he gets no points for that.

If you want to fight for social justice you're going to have to refine your tools and strategies, because if you are correct about Ron Paul, you've lost, given that he's the only one standing for the absolute basics like Constitutional rights.

So, Ron Paul is pro-homeopathy and the like? In that case, he's either a credulous fool, or a supporter of cheating snake-oil salesmen. To quote Randall Munroe, "telling someone who trusts you that you're giving them medicine, when you know you're not, because you want their money, isn't just lying- it's like an example you'd make up if you had to illustrate for a child why lying is wrong."

You've just described Big Pharma.

Of course, maybe Ron Paul isn't in favor of homeopathy and other frauds. In which case he wrote HR 2117 very badly, because as far as I can tell it lets anyone market anything and call it medicine for your illness without the FDA being able to treat it as a medicine and regulate it accordingly.

So HR 2117 does not speak well for Ron Paul.

Health freedom is the right to choose.

You have yet to provide any other reason for anyone to believe him, or you.

Nor can I; its ideological more than anything else. Either you believe in the power of the state, or the power of the individual, but the middle ground for an objectively workable balance is missing.

I've got to call it a night. Sorry.

[PainRack]

Brock, were you old enough to remember the brown fog of LA? Remember why it isn't there anymore?

Considering that it was the "industries know how to best regulate themselves" mentality during the Bush years which has sent the US environmental record deteoriating....... no. The EPA might not have moved on climate change and etc during the 90s, but its actions during the eighties shows that if it finds a vision, enjoys good leadership and etc, it can play an important role once more.


Its even more interesting because the US are one of the few regulators who do use market mechanisms to reduce pollution and get condemned for it. For example, the sulphur dioxide licenses, and the recent carbon tax proposals. So, you can't even blast them for being overtly bureaucratic regulators.

[Alkaloid]

Well I actually have years of reading about EPA failures and collusion with industry and environmentalists having to fight the EPA to make it do its job contributing to my frustration. Its endemic in any western country; regulatory agencies don't police conflicts of interests, and therefore their actual regulatory charges, very well. It gets worse and worse every year, it seems, with one step forward preceding two steps back.

Seriously? Since when has the solution to a leaking dam been "BLOW IT THE FUCK UP!"

[Spoonist]

Uh, OK. That used to mean something and now it doesn't. This is a problem. I have no answer or rebuttal.

Military service still means a lot to the american public when it comes to presidents, so its not something that has gone away. However on this board it in itself means nothing, unless the actions performed during that military service gives a hint on presedential qualitites.
So the rebuttal you could be looking for would be specific examples of what he did 'over there' that somehow translates to presedential qualitites. Otherwise it proves nothing.

The People as a majority may be convinced it should end; that should count more than the politicians who want otherwise.

When compared to Santorum and Newt who want to engage Iran, it does. But not vs Mitt who doesn't. Nor vs Obama who obviously has no such plans right now.

You've just described Big Pharma.
Health freedom is the right to choose.

Nope. Since the public is not medical doctors they will not be in a position to make informed decisions when it comes to pharma. So if you would transfer the responsibility of "right to choose" to the public they will intrinsicly make bad health decisions. This is why all countries with a functional health care regulate pharmaceuticals and medical practices. The US does not exist in a unique paralell world to the rest of us, so this increased right to choose would be detrimental to health overall.
If the world would function like you hope then people who by choice does not take "big pharma medicine" or "western medicine" would fare better than those who do. But it is the other way around, they statistically die sooner and lives in worse health than the rest of us, which the poster boy for alternative cancer treatment, Steve Jobs, proved all to well. Even with infinate money his alternative health choices killed him.
This is because the alternative choice is not different brands of medicine, instead its regulated functional medicine vs non-regulated non-functional medicine.



The only "rational" argument I've heard for alternative medicine is that it culls the herd of the gullible and that it would reduce the number of elderly vs productive.

[PainRack]

The funny thing about health freedom is..... well, people have the freedom to buy and do whatever they want. It has never been about that. What CORPORATIONS don't have is the freedom to advertise and sell things that don't do what they are purported to do.

The funny thing is the thing can be extremely nuanced. The DSHEA places a totally different burden than those place on drug companies, namely, that diet supplements must be safe to the consumer. Because the burden on the companies is that supplements must be safe as opposed to must be effective, its much cheaper than drugs. The problem is that dietary supplements want to have their cake and eat it too. So, they make claims that the supplements can cure this, or do that.....

http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySuppleme ... m#regulate

Under DSHEA, a firm is responsible for determining that the dietary supplements it manufactures or distributes are safe and that any representations or claims made about them are substantiated by adequate evidence to show that they are not false or misleading

Its the last bit that has the health freedom nuts up in arms. Supplements are already in a special category of their own, as they only have to demonstrate safety.(Well, demonstrate safety if its a new ingredient, as opposed to being found in the food supply and now being marketed as a supplement.) Drugs have to demonstrate both safety and effectiveness, and MOST important of all, all new products have to be approved. Supplements DON"T.

These companies already get ALL the breaks, in return, what the government is demanding is that these corporations do not get to advertise these supplements as being able to do things that no scientific study supports. DRUGS on the other hand must be shown to be both safe AND effective, before they receive APPROVAL for sale. Its a totally different ball game and any one who believes that this is a conspiracy by Big Pharma is absurd. If anything, looking at how the laws are structured, its arguable that this is a conspiracy by Big Alt Med.

Which interestingly, it partially is because the reason why they were omitted from the initial drug acts in the US were because of the partiality of US congressmen for alt med/snake oil salesmen, and even the DSHEA itself is a piece of pro health freedom legislation. It came about as a result of lobbying by health food companies because they wanted a special category of their own, outside of food proper but not drugs. It also places the burden on the FDA to prove that a supplement is unsafe, not the companies before the products could be discontinued.


So, seriously, why no hate for Big Alt Med?

[Sidewinder]

So, seriously, why no hate for Big Alt Med?

Because of the Audacity of Hope.

Example: You have pancreatic cancer. The tumor can't be removed without removing your pancreas, which you need to live.

Big Pharma: We can't cure your condition. The best we can do is kill the cancer cells with radiation and chemicals, which can be just as fatal to you, if improperly administrated.

Big Alt Med: We have a magic cure (that doesn't work), which has no harmful side-effects (and no helpful prime-effects- it's snake oil, after all)!

Some people are desperate enough to believe shit like that.

[aerius]

Seriously? Since when has the solution to a leaking dam been "BLOW IT THE FUCK UP!"

When the choice is blow it the fuck up after evacuating everyone downstream OR let the dam leak and eventually collapse at some undetermined time in the future when no one downstream is prepared for it.

[Simon_Jester]

There's also a heavy dose of random conspiracy bullshit. People like to believe that the state of the world was created by a handful of villains who move in secret, and who are actually quite weak, so that they could be beaten easily if everyone were alert to their tricks. If you think that, then you think you are the enlightened person who knows the secret to fixing the world's problems, and you get to think everyone else is stupid for not listening to you. That's a strong combination.

Brock seems to have fallen into that world- where there are no coincidences, where The Man never does anything for a good reason, where adding another layer of conspiracy is more appealing than adjusting your beliefs to fit scientific fact... and where Ron Paul is the savior-hero because he's not The Man.

People wonder why Ron Paul ever put his name on those newsletters. I think a lot of it was to make sure he'd have the loyalty and approval of people who think like Brock.

[UnderAGreySky]

Lets ask some economists on what they think of the Gold Standard.

Question A:

If the US replaced its discretionary monetary policy regime with a gold standard, defining a "dollar" as a specific number of ounces of gold, the price-stability and employment outcomes would be better for the average American.

Strongly Agree: 0%
Agree: 0%
Uncertain: 0%
No Opinion: 0%
Disagree: 43%
Strongly Disagree: 57%

Question B: There are many factors besides US inflation risk that influence the current dollar price of gold.

Strongly Agree: 73%
Agree: 24%
Uncertain: 0%
No Opinion: 3%
Disagree: 0%
Strongly Disagree: 0%

[bobalot]

This guy, Jamie Kelso, is one of Ron Paul's organisers in 2008 and 2012. He is also the owner and administrator of two whitepower websites, a moderator on stormfront and former personal assistant of David Duke.

Seriously, how much evidence do you need that Ron Paul is a racist shitbag or at least caters to racist shitbags?

[General Brock]

Brock, were you old enough to remember the brown fog of LA? Remember why it isn't there anymore?

Considering that it was the "industries know how to best regulate themselves" mentality during the Bush years which has sent the US environmental record deteoriating....... no. The EPA might not have moved on climate change and etc during the 90s, but its actions during the eighties shows that if it finds a vision, enjoys good leadership and etc, it can play an important role once more.

Its even more interesting because the US are one of the few regulators who do use market mechanisms to reduce pollution and get condemned for it. For example, the sulphur dioxide licenses, and the recent carbon tax proposals. So, you can't even blast them for being overtly bureaucratic regulators.

At the very least, an EPA with Ron Paul hanging over their heads might be more inclined to do their jobs better. However, I see where you are coming from, in that removing it immediately does endanger the good the EPA is doing, without something at least as effective as that clearly replacing it, and the obvious threat that nothing might replace it even if Ron Paul had something more definite than landowners suing polluters.

[bobalot]

Brock, were you old enough to remember the brown fog of LA? Remember why it isn't there anymore?

Considering that it was the "industries know how to best regulate themselves" mentality during the Bush years which has sent the US environmental record deteoriating....... no. The EPA might not have moved on climate change and etc during the 90s, but its actions during the eighties shows that if it finds a vision, enjoys good leadership and etc, it can play an important role once more.

Its even more interesting because the US are one of the few regulators who do use market mechanisms to reduce pollution and get condemned for it. For example, the sulphur dioxide licenses, and the recent carbon tax proposals. So, you can't even blast them for being overtly bureaucratic regulators.

At the very least, an EPA with Ron Paul hanging over their heads might be more inclined to do their jobs better. However, I see where you are coming from, in that removing it immediately does endanger the good the EPA is doing, without something at least as effective as that clearly replacing it, and the obvious threat that nothing might replace it even if Ron Paul had something more definite than landowners suing polluters.

Nice rationalising you got going there. Ron Paul has stated he wants abolish it and with the current Republican party, he may actually be able muster enough support to do that. Even if he cant abolish it on paper, he would have the power as President to cripple it so that it is virtually useless. When confronted with the insanity of this position, you come up with:

"LOLZ Ron Paul wont abolish it like he said on numerous occasions! He will make it run better by his mere presence in the white house!"

[General Brock]

So, seriously, why no hate for Big Alt Med?

Alt Med is a bit of a joke, warning about Big Pharma pills to... sell you a pill. However, supplements are already regulated as a food. That's what they are, and they should already be safe.

In most cases, many illnesses are just malnutrition, the way a shortage of vitamin D results in rickets or vitamin C scurvy. Alt Med is already not allowed to sell, say orange peels, as a cure for any specific illness, and I'm fine with that, since only a doctor sincere in purpose should be making treatment calls for either better diet or if conventional drugs are more appropriate.

However, supplements having to put something like dried acai berries through the same approval process as a synthetic chemical nature never said people could get away with eating is ridiculous. Many supplements have been around for years without any problems, and now may be taken of the market for no other reason, it seems, that Big Pharma doesn't like people having alternatives that don't pay them off.

[PeZook]

However, supplements having to put something like dried acai berries through the same approval process as a synthetic chemical nature never said people could get away with eating is ridiculous.

What?

Dude, the worst the producer of dried berry supplements may have to do is remove all claims like "Berries treat cancer!" from the packaging. Only if he wants to keep them will he have to do clinical trials and incur all the associated expenses and perhaps the risk of the trials showing that no, they don't treat cancer.

[bobalot]

So, seriously, why no hate for Big Alt Med?

Alt Med is a bit of a joke, warning about Big Pharma pills to... sell you a pill. However, supplements are already regulated as a food. That's what they are, and they should already be safe.

In most cases, many illnesses are just malnutrition, the way a shortage of vitamin D results in rickets or vitamin C scurvy. Alt Med is already not allowed to sell, say orange peels, as a cure for any specific illness, and I'm fine with that, since only a doctor sincere in purpose should be making treatment calls for either better diet or if conventional drugs are more appropriate.

However, supplements having to put something like dried acai berries through the same approval process as a synthetic chemical nature never said people could get away with eating is ridiculous. Many supplements have been around for years without any problems, and now may be taken of the market for no other reason, it seems, that Big Pharma doesn't like people having alternatives that don't pay them off.

Could you provide some sources for the numerous claims you just posted there?

[General Brock]

Nice rationalising you got going there. Ron Paul has stated he wants abolish it and with the current Republican party, he may actually be able muster enough support to do that. Even if he cant abolish it on paper, he would have the power as President to cripple it so that it is virtually useless. When confronted with the insanity of this position, you come up with:

"LOLZ Ron Paul wont abolish it like he said on numerous occasions! He will make it run better by his mere presence in the white house!"

My 'rationalizing' does not preclude EPA abolishment, and Ron Paul's position is that it should be easier for property owners to deal with polluters. It would hardly happen overnight and without much debate.

The latest Ron Paul EPA beef is the EPA seizure of some private land in a Supreme Court case, Sackett versus the EPA. Apparently some homeowners were found to have purchased a lot on wetland, and were required to return the land to a wetland state. Constitutionally, private property is needed for public use is taken by eminent domain, not the arbitrary decision of a bureaucracy.

My position was, to protect the good the EPA was doing is fine, allowing the bad to continue, is not.

[General Brock]

So, seriously, why no hate for Big Alt Med?

Alt Med is a bit of a joke, warning about Big Pharma pills to... sell you a pill. However, supplements are already regulated as a food. That's what they are, and they should already be safe.

In most cases, many illnesses are just malnutrition, the way a shortage of vitamin D results in rickets or vitamin C scurvy. Alt Med is already not allowed to sell, say orange peels, as a cure for any specific illness, and I'm fine with that, since only a doctor sincere in purpose should be making treatment calls for either better diet or if conventional drugs are more appropriate.

However, supplements having to put something like dried acai berries through the same approval process as a synthetic chemical nature never said people could get away with eating is ridiculous. Many supplements have been around for years without any problems, and now may be taken of the market for no other reason, it seems, that Big Pharma doesn't like people having alternatives that don't pay them off.

Could you provide some sources for the numerous claims you just posted there?

You've probably got me on the acai berries.

According to the FDA's New Dietary Ingredient guidelines issued on July 1, 2011, the FDA believes that “new dietary supplements” must be regulated similarly to synthetic food preservatives. The FDA guidelines have modeled the outrageous safety thresholds after those in place for food additives. This appears to be in direct violation of DSHEA, the law enacted in 1994 to protect consumer access to dietary supplements, which classifies dietary supplements as foods, not food additives.

Link: http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/07 ... atives.htm

[General Brock]

Rickets and vitamin D:

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind/

Scurvy and vitamin C:

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitaminc/

I'll concede that my statement "In most cases, many illnesses are just malnutrition," is too broad and simplistic. However, if you read the conditions affected by just two vitamins, its clear that diet and nutrition matters, whether at the stages of prevention , treatment or recovery.

[General Brock]

However, supplements having to put something like dried acai berries through the same approval process as a synthetic chemical nature never said people could get away with eating is ridiculous.

What?

Dude, the worst the producer of dried berry supplements may have to do is remove all claims like "Berries treat cancer!" from the packaging. Only if he wants to keep them will he have to do clinical trials and incur all the associated expenses and perhaps the risk of the trials showing that no, they don't treat cancer.

I never agreed with Alt Med industry pretensions to recommending, on their product labels, treatment for specific medical ailments. There is concern in the Alt Med industry because they can't as openly cite legitimate scientific studies appearing to validate claims, such as that cherries may treat joint inflammation.

However, although Hippocrates said, "Let food by thy medicine", there is no darn way the nice lady at the health food store is any more qualified to diagnose and assign a treatment regimen than a pharmacist, let alone a product manufacturer's PR dept..

The completion of Hippocrates statement, "... and medicine be thy food", though, does raise alarm bells as far as Big Pharma goes.

So certainly, I want lawmakers like Ron Paul around to keep honest options open and market competition gamesmanship fair.

[LaCroix]

So certainly, I want lawmakers like Ron Paul experts like the FDA around to keep honest options open and market competition gamesmanship fair.

fixed the logic for you

[mr friendly guy]

Hmm, 2 diseases caused by malnutrition. And one of them ie from vitamin D deficiency need not be fixed with supplements, it can be fixed by simply getting out in the sun. Come on, how many diseases are NOT caused by malnutrition. Lets try off the top of my head should we?

Endocrine

Diabetes mellitis type I and II
Diabetes insipidis
SIADH
Conn's disease
Addison's disease
Pan hypopituitism
Cushings syndrome and Cushing's disease
Acromegaly
Graves disease
Hashimoto's disease
Reidel's thyroiditis.
Multinodular goitre
Parathyroid adenoma

Oncology

Pretty much all solid cancers are not caused by malnutrition

Haematology
Thalassemia
Leukaemias (multiple)
Lymphomas (multiple)
Multiple myeloma
Polycythemia rubra vera
Myelodysplasia

Gastroenterology and hepatology
Haemachromatosis
Wilson's disease
Alpha feto protein deficiency
Primary biliary cirrhosis
Primary sclerosing cholagitis
Crohn's disease
Ulcerative colitis
Gastric ulcers
Coeliac disease

And I haven't even started with the infectious diseases, renal diseases for the causes of nephrotic and nephritic syndromes, geriatric issues, immunology (eg autoimmune diseases), respiratory (eg pulmonary fibrosis, asthma, COPD) and the surgical conditions.

The statement that "many illnesses are just malnutrition," is not just too broad and simplistic, its flat out wrong and smacks of something the alt medicine quacks will sprout.

[LaCroix]

The statement that "many illnesses are just malnutrition," is not just too broad and simplistic, its flat out wrong and smacks of something the alt medicine quacks will sprout.

Hey, come on, he still quotes Hippocrates as an expert on medicine. Next post, Archimedes and Platon will explain the laws of electricity, gravity and quantum mechanics.