TAYLOR: I don't know you very well, but I think I know you well enough to believe you have no desire to ever become President of the United States.Here's the source. It's been buzzing around the tubes lately. I'm not certain, but doubtful it's a fake, so I'll do some searching to try and confirm it. By the way, the interview is from just a year and a half ago.
CONGRESSMAN PAUL: That's for sure.
TAYLOR: Even so, many people who know you and revere your work would love to see that. But if you were President, what policies would you seek to implement to make America a freer, safer, fairer, and more prosperous place for its citizens?
CONGRESSMAN PAUL: It's the respect for liberty that is the problem. We don't have enough respect or understanding or confidence in liberty. That is the real problem. To cut back on government, you have to have the people understand the issue of liberty. So, my biggest goal has been in the area of education, as well as this little political effort I am involved in. But oh, I guess I would get rid of the Federal Reserve, get rid of the IRS, bring our troops home, and cut down to only about 20% of what we are spending on the military - those things would bring about a tremendous boom in this country, but it is just not going to happen. [emphasis added]
Confirmation... A simple Google search reveals that there is indeed a recurring link between J. Taylor and his Gold and Technology Stocks newsletter, and his often interviewed subject: Ron Paul.
If you like it, link it | 4 Comments:
Great Stuff bro.
way to take a story from 2 years ago and pretend its relevant to today
We need to be careful here; to a true-believer Libertarian a lot of the world's problems stem from government taking money and applying it in places where there was never a problem in the first place.
Paul is absolutely correct that if we took the Defense budget and gave it back to the private sector and the taxpayers there would be an economic boom. But he's wrong in his belief that other countries would see us as being good neighbors and would play nice with us. Its the blindness of too much faith in the wrong thing.
Ron Paul, in peacetime, would be the absolutely perfect choice for President. He's right about every economic and constitutional issue he speaks about, and he's the only true small government advocate running. But he's so far wrong about the war and the nature of the threat that one must question whether he'd change if faced with the facts about al-Islam.
I think he would (which is why I support him) but I can see how some might not agree. That's fair. But all of the other remaining candidates are unabashed liberals, plain and simple. There is not much difference between what they would do and what Hillary will do if she gets into office.
It's not quite two years old. And I think it's pretty relevant for someone who was 'for sure'.
As for the military comment, how is that not relevant? The whole interview largely is about current national issues, issues presidential candidates discuss... I'd say it's relevant enough.
Thomas, I agree with Paul more than I disagree, but the things I disagree with him are too big for me to swallow and support him.
Post a Comment