Don Quixote for President

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/members/phillyimc/sites/phillyimc.org/web/sites/all/modules/mailhandler/mailhandler.module on line 855.

Over 3000 people in the pouring rain were across from the Liberty Bell before the Republican Primary. All to hear Ron Paul. I traveled the least, living just down Market Street from Independence Mall to hear my favorite “Don Quixote” character.” I had some musings of Romney being stopped. In part due to public outcry over the huge amount he gave to his church. And to prove Republicans weren't prejudiced a less determined Mormon, Jon Huntsman, would get the dark horse nod.

But the rest of the crowd wasn't musing, they felt this was possibly the last hope to save this society from an overwhelming disaster. Nevertheless the atmosphere was extremely relaxed. Supporting organizations had their own booth. The only emotional exchange I noticed involved me where I (at the time) differed with those in one stall over US involvement with the UN, arguing while I leaned over my walker making them quite uncomfortable.
If it was a rock concert, sports event or some entertaining group, it would be huge news but since apparently only I considered it an entertainment event, it was less fun for the media to report on. The viewers choosing the news programs that dwell on the lighter side of life. The crowd, however, saw the limited coverage as a media black out.
Dennis Kucinich has tried to make the world a better place, and is one of the few people who ever discussed the future beyond the confines of the next election cycle. However, Ron Paul might have at least postponed the war with Iran. The otherwise shrill Republican debates, each candidate trying to prove they were tougher than the other, would have encourage Obama to be harsher with Iran. The delegates pledged to Ron Paul extending his cooling efforts.

Back to the event, my walker gave me pass to the front seat in front of the sound system, With the help of hearing problems plus tissue paper in my ears the sound was quite pleasant. A tent blocked my view but before Ron Paul spoke I leaned forward to rest on my walker and I had a clear view from under the tent canopy blocking the stage. Despite a couple of times wiping rain from my eyes it was quite peasant to relax and listen to Ron Paul sound like he was explaining how to fix something to a mixed audience including little kids. Something like one of Rick Steves's documentaries, traveling around Europe. Not the uncomfortable angry I feel at other political events where I hear about this or that devil that is causing us great harm. “Stop the Fed” is a Ron Paul staple. Yet not a drop of anger toward Alan Greenspan or any present federal reserve bank officials. Others seems to think they need a little hate in their rhetoric.

Some accuse Twitter, with its short comments, of teaching people not to think. But politicians constantly tell themselves and their aids not to say too much. Petition gathering is supposed to involve not arguing and shutting up and moving on as soon as the signature is obtained. No solutions suggested to any problem, crime, poverty, the environment etc except in the confines of one election cycle wall. Some say there is a vast conspiracy of religious fanatics to spread ignorance. or far right media outlets to stop people from thinking. But today's politics of trying not to say too much inevitably teaches how to think less.

Primary season is over in Pennsylvania. I agree with those that say again mostly the wrong people won in each hotly contested primacy race in either party. But perhaps it's inevitable that the shallowest people will have the best sounding short sound bites.

Jimmy Carter was a honest mediator in the middle east. Now Germany has taken over that role. Russia and China,which I would have never guessed three years ago have temporarily taken the role as world peacemaker to the point that every time North Korea does something wrong the US urges China to do something about it.

When the US sparred with the Soviet Union Condoleezza Rice took Soviet studies in college, others took Russian if they wanted a job in foreign policy. Today how can the US possible do anything intelligent in Afghanistan and the Muslim world in general without a lot of college scholarships for Arabic and Middle East studies preparing for it?

The John Birch society who I sparred with at their tent says the US should stop any funding of the UN. What should the US relations with the UN and other international bodies be in the next 10, 20 and 30 years. Ron Paul says get out and it makes far more sense than the others who announce no proposal for dealing with the future outside of this election cycle. The UN would do better without any US funds then a lot of Americans getting involved without paying any attention at all including the US peace movement that has gotten fixated on the idea of setting a future definite date for ending a war with out even thinking when that ever ended a past war. I got a few suggestions like one year autonomy for Kabul with Turkish peacekeepers at the city borders to allow anger to cool a little and start the Taliban arguing with themselves instead of just Kabul. But such ideas require thought not the sound bite statements of fund raising letters that peace groups send out consist of sound bites not thought.

The UN for a change is finally trying really to make peace or slow the war in Syria. The US can do its part by keeping its money here at home and stop funding the rebels which inevitably includes al Qaeda in defiance of the UN. If Ron Paul would squawk about funding the rebels and al Qaeda as much as he does Iran we would be as big a peacemaker there as he is with Iran.

However I am sure there could be better proposals on how the US should deal with the future than Ron Paul's if anyone ever made any outside of the election cycles don't say too much perimeters.

Everyone, stop finding devils to blame for all our problem, take Paul's example of hating the federal banking system without hating any of the individuals involved.


Ron Paul was once the Libertarian candidate for President. The primary fight in l988 was over abortion, despite Ron Paul's dread that was the deciding issue for Libertarians to argue about. I'm sure he wouldn't want to bring up tension within Third Party politics again. See Wikipedia Libertarian perspectives on abortion. Ron Paul doesn't like Federal encroachment even when it comes to the FBI telling local police what to do, or with Federal abortion legislation. But he doesn't abortion distracted from the local power vs big government issue. The two party system is too entrenched to be broken except with overwhelming effort. Perhaps several third party can have the same Vice-President candidate, The Presidential candidate pro and the Vice Presidential candidate anti. Paul would not even have to campaign just not take steps to keep himself off the ballot.

Another I think do-able scenario is a rebellion in both political parties, where the delegates rebel and the Republicans choose Ron Paul for Vice-President and the Democrats despite Obama's pleading, drop Biden for Vice-President picking instead the Mayor of Newark, so instead of two dish rags on the ticket, one milk-toast and one Rambo type politician. Ron Paul has a way of accomplishing change just by not compromising what he preaches.

By Richard Kane


Other comparisons of Ron Paul with Don Quixote

Something unique about Ron Paul. Stop the Fed is a campaign theme but not a critical word about Alan Greenspan or any past or present Federal Reserve officials. Not coming out of rallies with indigestion from all the anger hurled at this or that so called Devil gets us in touch with a real world where the Devils don't cause all the problems.

What should you, I and the country be doing to prepare for 5, 15 or 25 years from now? Perhaps collecting Gold isn't the answer. Other politicians just answer what can or should be done up to the next election cycle. Ron Paul is getting us to think and plan for the future, whether or not as dire as Paul thinks, planning will help somewhat.

Politics is becoming sound bits where politicians try not to say to much and instuct their aids and associates such as petition gathering volunteers not to say too much. Ron Paul gets people talking and thinking.

Other comparisons of Ron Paul and Don Quixote follow,

Op-Ed: Ron Paul the Don Quixote of US politics sees the achievable dream
By John Louie S. Ramos

Ron Paul Launches Quixotic Presidential Bid


The following is by Ron Paul, or some of his quotes put together and added to by John Eleniewsk They called me Don Quixote!!!



Richard Kane PA

I checked out Ron Paul's views on the Fed

at his website and find that his views would make Keynesian money manipulations impossible. If you read Paul Krugman's piece on the baysitting co-op and their use of scrip, you'll see that the manipulation of the money supply is essential to any modern economy. Paul's view of the housing bubble completely ignores the role of private financial institutions.
To designate Paul a "Don Quixote" is to dignify him far beyond anything he deserves. He's a blithering idiot who needs to be kept far away from the levers of power.

At least the word Idiot is your real Opinion not Phych War

As far as power goes Ron Paul has one vote in the House of Representatives. And he has to miss some votes as he campaigns for President over and over again. Real argument helps us think instead of psych war and contravened argument to smear such as the claim Ron Paul represents the rich who by the way don't give him money so they don't think so.

Rich, thanks for adding to our understanding. Without arguing with Ron Paul economics becomes a mystery which ordinary people can only participate in by choosing one expert to cheer.

Rich do you think you understand economics more now that you are opposing Ron Paul's comments. Ron Paul perhaps doesn't know or pay attention to rubber bands can stretch but he is very aware that they can snap and so can the US economy.

My comment was based entirely

upon my understanding of economics. I'm afraid to say that your rubber band analogy is so hopelessly flawed and irrelevant, I'm no even sure how to go about arguing with it. I recommend reading the Paul Krugman piece that I supplied the link to above and then look at the Ron Paul statement that I also supplied the link to above and you'll see Paul really isn't very literate when it comes to economics.

Keynesianism is not a viable economic system

Ron Paul is QUITE economically literate. He has predicted the economic bubbles and explained the reasons for them. He has a plan to save this country instead of driving it into bankruptcy and martial law for the convenience of global government ruling elites. He is not owned ny Goldman Sachs or Israel, unlike the rest of the turds running us.

Granted, Ron Paul saw the housing bubble

Joe Scarborough credits him with seeing it as early as 2003. But Paul then gets it wrong by saying that it went way back to 1971 and by linking it to America going off the gold standard. The Keynesian economist Dean Baker saw the bubble in 2002 by comparing the prices for housing to the prices for rentals and seeing that housing was going up while rentals remained flat.
So yes, Paul was right, but for the wrong reasons.

Rich, you caught me responding without clicking your links

The more the US manages to squeeze out bying power the more will be spent on war.

There is a problem with health care and education increasing rapedly in cost. The worst solution to the education cost spiral may be on-line accedited elimentary schools.

Any gamma blast only great enough to kill a aew would turn our computer world into gibish. Paper money could be used as fuel and tolet paper.

The essential point

that Krugman was making was that money is a fairly arbitrary and manipulable denotation of value. No, wiping out computer records would cause a great deal of chaos, but the bills and coins and gold bars and pigs bellies, etc., etc., would retain their value.

Rich, let's go back to your first comment

Baby sitting coop left out the bank. The poor keep paying more and more interest to the bank. The Paul Krugman's want to keep lending the poor more and more to pay off their ever increasing debt. To this add Ponzi artists who unlike Madoff made sure what they did became legal before everything crashed and that if was arranged for the government to guarantee the scheme.

Before Ron Paul a lot of progressives felt guilty or angry at the military budget. Ron Paul added fear of too much debt to the mix, I think an important step in the right direction.

The point Krugman was making

is that keeping currency at a stable amount, as Paul is recommending by opposing the very existence of the Fed, is a terrible idea. Yes, the example is a simplified one. The example involves scrip, not cash, so no, he's not trying to model the entire economy and account for every single, possible detail.
If there is a single, overall problem for the non-wealthy (I don't use the term "poor" as the problem takes in the middle class as well), it is that productivity and pay used to move together (see chart), but since about the time Reagan came into office, productivity has continued to advance at a completely normal rate, but pay for ordinary economic actors has been pretty much flat.
No, we don't to keep lending money to the "poor," we need to see to it that ordinary, non-wealthy individuals get better salaries to compensate them for the work they do. To permit the rich to get ever-richer while ordinary salaries continue to stagnate is a recipe for returning our politics to the Medieval era, when we had a tiny class of the very wealthy, a small merchant class to serve the needs of the very wealthy and just about everybody else was a peasant (See the movie "The Hunger Games").

YES non-Wealthy Say NO to amphetamines

Thank for substituting non-wealthy for poor. At this point in the wealth distribution averages it is a better term. Rich, real debate is you calling Ron Paul an idiot which you honestly believe, for more than internal emotional reasons. Psych war is calling Ron Paul an agent of a ruling class that never gave him a penny.

Internet criticism of Paul Krugman surrounds his comments at the 10th annivesity of 911 so much s that there is no way to separate real criticism from psych war. Al Qaeda, if anyone ever noticed, gets in a lot of fights. Those who try to avoid fighting with al Qaeda can be held for ransom.

Al Qaeda's main target is those who claim to be good Muslims but get worked up watching soccer on a TV screen, or who pray to Allah in al Qaeda's mind the wrong way such as Sufi religious sites being suicide bombed when that are crowded with people. A small attack on the US compared to what would have happened if the US was part of the world getting excited about soccer, and Americans think they hate us. If you want to see some real al Qaeda hate start worshiping soccer instead of football. Al Qaeda is so confident that the US will spend itself into obligation that it doesn't want to waist bombs that can be used to fight less certain efforts with. However they don't mind spending a few pennies half halfheartedly trying to blow a plane up knowing that doing so will succeed at making the US spend money at an even faster rate.

One can't criticize Paul Krugman without getting his 9/11 attitude out of the way. I honestly think Krugman is advocating amphetamines or becoming a speed freak to solve all the world's problems, Germany invented them and Hitler was proud that the super-race created a super drug to make supermen more and more super. German factories were flooded with them and Hitler and SS leaders were as high as a kite. I hope Paul Krugman won't lead to as speedy an end to the American Century as amphetamines did to Hitler's dreams of breading a vastly intelligent and ever more powerful world. I am not sure how relevant Ron Paul's ideas are but when it comes to dangerous ideas I look elsewhere.

I had to look up the "amphetimines" reference

Krugman reacted to that controversy in a later post. I agreed with his progressive defenders at the time and then forgot all about the whole dispute. I had a cousin who went WAY overboard in his reaction to 9-11 and got a lot of criticism from other relatives for doing so, so I knew what Krugman was talking about. I believe it was especially the abuse of that event that Krugman was really responding to. From the HuffPo piece: "[Krugman] insisted that "the memory of how the atrocity was abused is and remains a painful one. And it's a story that I, at least, can neither forget nor forgive." The Bush Administration playing on peoples' fears and manipulating peoples' emotions in order to get a war with Iraq going.
Yeah okay, calling Paul an idiot is perhaps an overstatement. Sorry for the overheated rhetoric on my part.

Something flashed in my head

The underpants bomber consists of spare change worth of explosives. However, suicide bombers are in short supply especially compared to the number al Qaeda wants. No problem for them, a dud bomb means no lost of one dead recruit, and the goal achieved of the US closer to bankruptcy then ever.

Paul vs Paul - Krugman debates Ron Paul

Raw Story features a 20-minute debate Paul Krugman and Ron Paul.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and economics professor Paul Krugman debated political economy Monday on Bloomberg TV. Paul made his case for Austrian economics, arguing for a limited government that keeps its hands off the economy. In contrast, Krugman made the case for Keynesian economics, arguing that a completely unmanaged economy would inevitably lead to a volatile boom and bust cycle.

Ron Paul devastates Gun Control laws

There is one thing about Ron Paul that I think tends to be bad news. Before dealing with the Ron Paul campaign I would have said I am certain the Ron Paul is very bad news when it comes to gun control.

Usually when people argue they change a few minds and make the others they argue with more determined then ever to be against it. If anyone debates or listens where Ron Paul is talking about the issue they are slightly less anger at those who don't want to control guns. Ron Paul weaves together legalizing guns with legalizing marijuana. Fighting the patriot act and for free speech. Those who think the need to control guns is a number one issue in this country won't dare to mention Ron Paul's name because doing so would only make him more effective.

In areas that I agree with Paul I am very thankful that he is involved as the only debater that doesn't in part invigorate those who disagree. The wild smears that Ron Paul is a tool of the rich who never gave him a dime, is because honest disagreement will never invigorate those causes that oppose him.

There are powerful lobbies that don't often make many mistakes, the Cuban-American, Israeli lobbies and the Teachers Unions. The NRA never made a mistake until they endorsed Romney over Obama. Obama hates guns but it's Romney that might have the power, if he choose, to put all the NRA leaders in jail. No, not the UN or any foreign power mad at the US.