The quid-pro-quo game that earmarks are part of is precisely the second largest problem, after lobby money influence, in today's congress. To dismiss it as lightly as a 'pimple' when in Paul's case it's a matter of "Do as I say, not as I do", is the mark of one who has made an emotional rather than rational judgment of the man.
Nor do you help your case by reducing your argument to a spelling lame about my failure to capitalize "Constitution" to your satisfaction.
That you accept Sennholz as very well respected in the field does, indeed, demonstrate that you are correct to assert that you have no economic education to speak of; although not as much so as your implication that Paul being "friends" with an economist somehow qualifies him in economics.
There is ample literature detailing the naivety of the Austrian school and their belief in a commodity based monetary system. Rather than restate the case here, I'll simply recommend that you look at the economics of the Gilded Age, which clearly demonstrate that most of the beliefs of that school about the effectiveness of commodity based monetary systems are clearly at odds with history.
You mistake my point about the Ron Paul report. The issue we were discussing is Paul's claimed integrity. When the the racist material stopped serving his purpose and first became a burden, he excused it with the claim that he had no control over everything that was written in the report, even though the racist remarks were made in columns he supposedly authored, and which were signed by himself. It is hardly an act of integrity to claim you are unaware of words written above your name, nor is it an act of integrity to allow statements you do not believe to be published in your name.
The Ron Paul Report was, simply, a cynical attempt to play to an audience, which is hardly the act of a man of integrity.
Ron Paul is neither particularly honest, as a politician, nor particularly competent, and his actions undermine his claimed beliefs.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
syntheid
Re: Integrity and the lack there of
Date: 2008-05-07 04:51 am (UTC)Nor do you help your case by reducing your argument to a spelling lame about my failure to capitalize "Constitution" to your satisfaction.
That you accept Sennholz as very well respected in the field does, indeed, demonstrate that you are correct to assert that you have no economic education to speak of; although not as much so as your implication that Paul being "friends" with an economist somehow qualifies him in economics.
There is ample literature detailing the naivety of the Austrian school and their belief in a commodity based monetary system. Rather than restate the case here, I'll simply recommend that you look at the economics of the Gilded Age, which clearly demonstrate that most of the beliefs of that school about the effectiveness of commodity based monetary systems are clearly at odds with history.
You mistake my point about the Ron Paul report. The issue we were discussing is Paul's claimed integrity. When the the racist material stopped serving his purpose and first became a burden, he excused it with the claim that he had no control over everything that was written in the report, even though the racist remarks were made in columns he supposedly authored, and which were signed by himself. It is hardly an act of integrity to claim you are unaware of words written above your name, nor is it an act of integrity to allow statements you do not believe to be published in your name.
The Ron Paul Report was, simply, a cynical attempt to play to an audience, which is hardly the act of a man of integrity.
Ron Paul is neither particularly honest, as a politician, nor particularly competent, and his actions undermine his claimed beliefs.