Ron Paul’s extreme free market anti-government ideology leads him into some pretty dark territory. For example, back in 2001, Ron Paul was busy supporting the propaganda push that helped Enron cheat California residents out of huge amounts of money.
Enron used fake energy shortages, and the resulting rolling blackouts, to pressure California to accept higher energy prices and less government regulation of the energy industry. The truth was that Enron was working with other energy companies to purposefully create the appearance of a crisis when one didn’t really exist.
Ron Paul helped this crooked scheme along in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives in which he claimed,
“We have an energy crisis in California created by the bureaucrats and the politicians. As prices skyrocket and a crisis is declared, it is later said that prices are now down and there’s less of a shortage or crisis. But it’s the market process that worked because the prices skyrocketed rather than skyrocketing prices becoming the justification for abandoning the market process.”
Ron Paul was just plain wrong. There was no energy crisis, except one artificially created by business. Bureaucrats and politicians in California were not to blame. Manipulation of market prices by big business was to blame.
Ron Paul couldn’t see the truth because his political ideology assumes that government is bad and the market processes of business are good. If there’s a problem, Ron Paul’s knee jerk reaction is to blame a bureaucrat somewhere. So, when there were rolling blackouts in California, Ron Paul’s knee jerked, and he blamed the people he always blames.
It also was awfully convenient for Ron Paul that Enron was centered in his home state of Texas. It’s easier for a Texas Republican like Ron Paul to claim that the problem with energy lies not with California, not in dirty business dealings in his own back yard.
In 2008, we need to elect a President who can get beyond ideological hangups and regional bias to serve the economic interests of the American people as a whole. The record shows that Ron Paul would not be that President.
(Source: Congressional Record, September 10, 2001)
Are you insinuating that Paul took money from Enron?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul12.html
Here’s what Dr Paul wrote about Enron. The hoaxes that were perpetrated on the Californians came about with government complicity. IF the energy market wasn’t a government monopoly, there would have been suppliers chomping at the but to supply energy when Enron decided there wasn’t any. Blame the liberal thieves that sugned the contract and funded their re-election campaigns. What Paul said was exactly right. YOu can’t blame the free market, because you haven’t been alive long enough to ever have seen a free market. What we have now is corporatism, not capitalism.
Nice! Thousands of people get fooled by Enron…and you point out one. Why?
Do you discredit other presidential candidates on the same foolish grounds who, as an example, voted to support the Iraq war because they were fooled into believing the WMD story? You don’t discredit the one being fooled…you need to discredit the source of the foolery (Enron).
Guys, you can quite with the attacks on Ron Paul, now.
Whoah, Jeffrey! You obviously haven’t read anything on Irregular Times but this one article.
We have gone after Enron, and we have gone after politicians who went along with the story of the Iraqi arsenals of weapons of mass destruction despite the lack of solid proof.
Ron Paul is as much of a fair target for skepticism as those others, so no, I don’t think I’ll stop looking into the darker corners of Ron Paul’s record.
Whoah, not so obvious!
I’ve read other articles…Ron Paul seems to be a challanging target for you to dig-up on.
I don’t mind you being skeptical. But, like I said, try not to scrutinize those being fooled. You might as well turn the mirror on myself or yourself, for that matter. It happens to all of us. Do you think that somehow because a man runs for President he ought to be impervious to such human weakness?
When Kennedy was assassinated, was he not fooled into thinking he’d be fine in that limo? When the attack of 9/11 came around, were we not ALL fooled (from the President down) into thinking it couldn’t happen?
Please, don’t waste your God given talent with this trivial stuff.
It’s not a free market if government is regulating it.
Wholesale prices were deregulated, but retail prices continued to be regulated. When wholesale prices rose to their true market value, the energy companies were still subject to retail price caps. They were forbidden by the government to pass the higher prices on to consumers. So, the energy companies were forced into buying energy at a loss.
Sorry, but that’s not a free market.
Enron was engaged in two controversial events which happened at the same time. Enron is to blame for one but not the other. Enron’s implosion due to its financial alchemy was of Enron’s malicious doing. Thank the Lord, they went out of business as a result. However, that said, the California power crisis was entirely a consequence of what the California government did to that state. The way they reregulated the market, necessarily made scarce power resources in a growing state, even more scarce during peak times. The ones to blame for the California power crisis are the legislature and governors of California. Enron just happened to be involved in trading that market. Everything they did in California was legal, particularly according to the foolish structure the California government created.
“Ron Paul is as much of a fair target for skepticism as those others, so no, I don’t think I’ll stop looking into the darker corners of Ron Paul’s record.”
Too bad you can’t do it without exaggerating, dissembling, innuendo, unsupported claims and general lack of integrity.
Keep going after Ron Paul if you enjoy that sort of thing and think it will have some meaning, but do so as if your words were meant to have merit and be considered by people who do not automatically share your point of view, otherwise you’re just ranting.
S.T.T., if you could actually explain how something I’ve written about in this article is exaggerating, dissembling, innuendo, or an unsupported claim with a general lack of integrity, I think that would be helpful.
Jeffrey, I do think that when someone runs for President, that person volunteers to be scrutinized, and ought to receive special scrutiny. Ron Paul is asking for the most powerful political position in all of human history, so I don’t feel bad at all about peeking in on his public record.
“S.T.T., if you could actually explain how something I’ve written about in this article is exaggerating, dissembling, innuendo, or an unsupported claim with a general lack of integrity, I think that would be helpful.”
Easily.
Exaggeration: “Ron Paul Sided with Enron on California Energy Crisis”
Just because someone is against government meddling in the free market, doesn’t mean they are for Enron. The Enron executives were crooks, and got what they deserved because they ripped people off. They lied, cheated and stole. I know you have a hard time believing that’s not what the free market is all about, but to pretend that government actually solves the problem is “pie in the sky,†as the Enron case proves. The Enron execs got away with harming lots of people before the government finally got around to doing something about it.
Innuendo #1 with lack of integrity #1 inside: “Ron Paul’s extreme free market anti-government ideology leads him into some pretty dark territory.†The innuendo comes from using the “dark territory†language to insinuate that Ron Paul’s ideology is sinister and conniving. Ron Paul has been pretty consistent and open about his desire for laissez fair capitalism and minimal government for his entire public career. The lack of integrity is by saying Ron Paul is anti-government when everything he’s ever written or said has been for smaller, less intrusive government. You are using “anti-“ to try to make his position seem worse than it really is.
Unsupported claim #1: “For example, back in 2001, Ron Paul was busy supporting the propaganda push that helped Enron cheat California residents out of huge amounts of money.†What propaganda push? How did Ron Paul help Enron?
Unsupported claim #2: “Enron used fake energy shortages, and the resulting rolling blackouts,†How did Enron create fake energy shortages? What did Enron do that led to rolling blackouts?
Unsupported claim #3: “to pressure California to accept higher energy prices and less government regulation of the energy industry.†When did California succumb to outside pressure to make less government regulation? Have you looked at their state legislative record? Does it say anything about how the folks in Sacramento were going to reduce the amount of regulation because of the actions of Enron?
Dissembling #1a: “The truth was that Enron was working with other energy companies to purposefully create the appearance of a crisis when one didn’t really exist.†This is a pure fabrication on your part, since you don’t really know why there was an energy shortage in California, so you trot out a common scapegoat: Big business.
Innuendo #2: “Ron Paul helped this crooked scheme along…†Here you are derogatorily implying that Ron Paul was involved the scheme you claim occurred above, or at least was complicit as one who aided and abetted. But the quote you cite in no way would help such a scheme, even if one occurred, since anti-bureaucratic rants have been going on for about 300 years, and not one criminal who was prosecuted for ripping off the public could show how such a rant aided their plans.
Your claim is exactly the same kind of illogic that the neo-cons use when they say that dissent against the plans of GWB helps the terrorists.
Dissembling #1b: “There was no energy crisis, except one artificially created by business. Bureaucrats and politicians in California were not to blame. Manipulation of market prices by big business was to blame.†This is exactly the same thing you said in #1a, just in different words and still just as untrue, since you have no logical reason to believe in it (though you may have emotional and ideological ones).
Dissembling #2: “Ron Paul couldn’t see the truth because his political ideology assumes that government is bad and the market processes of business are good.†Ron Paul is just as capable as anyone else of seeing the truth. He is no more blinded by his political ideology that you are. His political ideology does not “assume†government is bad, it leads to that conclusion from it’s own premises and logical arguments. If you want to discuss whether the premises and arguments of minarchists are valid, I have no problem with that, but you are assuming that Ron Paul is blinded by his political beliefs in the same way you are blinded by yours.
Lack of integrity #2: “If there’s a problem, Ron Paul’s knee jerk reaction is to blame a bureaucrat somewhere. So, when there were rolling blackouts in California, Ron Paul’s knee jerked, and he blamed the people he always blames.†The language of this passage is what is known as arguing from the conclusion, that is, you are saying, “A implies B therefore B shows A is true.â€
Innuendo #2: “It also was awfully convenient for Ron Paul that Enron was centered in his home state of Texas.†You imply that Ron Paul puts a Texas corporation ahead of the residents of California. He has never done anything of the sort. If you can find any proof in his voting record, now is the time to bring it forth.
Innuendo #3: “It’s easier for a Texas Republican like Ron Paul to claim that the problem with energy lies … with California, not in dirty business dealings in his own back yard.†[I’m guessing the first “not†in that was a typo, so I left it out to clear up the meaning of the sentence.]
Perhaps you are trying to imply that Ron Paul is the kind of elected official who takes the easy way. Having read about Ron Paul’s political career for about 20 years, the only response I can make to that is, “!!!!â€
“In 2008, we need to elect a President who can get beyond ideological hang-ups and regional bias to serve the economic interests of the American people as a whole.†This is your belief and is true as what you believe. In fact, in the exact wording of the phrase, without any reading between the lines, I agree with it, though I’m likely to disagree with whom you might name as such a President.
Unsupported claim finale: “The record shows that Ron Paul would not be that President.†…since you did not show this by your arguments above.
Logic 101: False premises do not support a conclusion. Even if the conclusion may be true, the argument is invalid if the premises are false. In this case, your argument is invalid since the premises are false. Even if Ron Paul is not the right person to be the President your argument is not what shows that to be true (nor the arguments from the other posts of yours I’ve read since I came to this forum).
Back to the drawing board for you. If you have any integrity, you’ll not post until you can actually support your arguments with valid reasoning and true premises.
Just to make things clear, I am not JClifford and I am sure he can answer for himself.
I just wanted to point out a few things about the kind of accusation you’re making.
You’re making a lot of semantics (which is fine) but then making a lot of semantic errors of your own (which undermine your arguments).
You say that “Ron Paul Sided with Enron on California Energy Crisis†is an exaggeration?
There was an energy crisis in California in 2001. Some people blamed energy companies in the newly-privatized industry, and some people blamed government bureaucracy.
Enron blamed government bureaucracy, and so did Ron Paul. Ron Paul was on the same side of this ongoing argument as Enron–he sided with them. This is not an exaggeration.
You refute the statement that Ron Paul “sided” with Enron by arguing that:
“Just because someone is against government meddling in the free market, doesn’t mean they are for Enron.”
First, you can take the same “side” as someone without necessarily being “for” someone. You can side with someone without necessarily intending to promote them or their interests in a specific way. You’re refuting a statement that was never made.
Second, JClifford did not accuse Ron Paul “just” on the grounds that he was “against government meddling in the free market.” Ron Paul said something much more specific: “We have an energy crisis in California created by the bureaucrats and the politicians.” Opposition to “government meddling in the free market” is simply not the same thing as identifying the cause of an energy crisis. Again, you’re refuting an argument that was never made.
I’m curious to see how you reply.
Now, let me start off with the charitable possibility and assume you’ll admit you were playing semantics poorly.
No? Didn’t think so. I’m betting on something more in an anti-intellectual vein, a popular refuge for conservatives who have just lost an argument with a liberal. The accusation will of course go that I am playing semantics, which is true; however, I am joining in the game of semantics you already started playing, in order to point out how badly you’re playing it. All to complicated for you now that you’re not winning? Of course it is.
Now, if the anti-intellectual spin doesn’t get you where you want, there’s always abuse (alas, seldom very creative, but please do make a good effort).
Ralph,
This line of yours is very important:
“You can side with someone without necessarily intending to promote them or their interests in a specific way,” because right here, jclifford says, “Ron Paul helped this crooked scheme along…”
Seems like jclifford was trying to show that Ron Paul was in fact trying to promote the interests of Enron.
Taking the title in context, your interpretation, while possible, does not apply.
Try again.
And you’ve lost your bet (becuase you assumed without proof that I am a conservative).
My bet was that you would take a certain rhetorical refuge that is popular with conservatives, which in no way assumes that you ARE a conservative. (Likewise, I may enjoy a glass of wine–a beverage popular with the French–without BEING a Frenchman.)
Your argument would be stronger if you could construct it without recourse to qualifiers such as “seems like…”
Anonymous Ralph,
“My bet was that you would take a certain rhetorical refuge that is popular with conservatives, which in no way assumes that you ARE a conservative. (Likewise, I may enjoy a glass of wine–a beverage popular with the French–without BEING a Frenchman.)”
Hey! You got me!
“Your argument would be stronger if you could construct it without recourse to qualifiers such as ‘seems like…’”
True, but irrelevant. My argument in comment #13 does not need to be stronger for it or my argument in comment #10 to be true.
You’ve set yourself up with two tasks now:
One is to address the contradiction between your interpretation of of “Ron Paul Sided With Enron On California Energy Crisis” and the context of the rest of the post, which includes such statements as:
“…Ron Paul was busy supporting the propaganda push that helped Enron cheat…”
“Ron Paul helped this crooked scheme along…”
“Ron Paul was just plain wrong. There was no energy crisis, except one artificially created by business. Bureaucrats and politicians in California were not to blame. Manipulation of market prices by big business was to blame.”
“It also was awfully convenient for Ron Paul that Enron was centered in his home state of Texas. It’s easier for a Texas Republican like Ron Paul to claim that the problem with energy lies … with California, not in dirty business dealings in his own back yard.”
A sentence, standing on it’s own, out on a blank page can have all kinds of meanings, many of which can be true and even contradictory. But once that sentence is grouped with others, its meaning gets narrowed down until there is only one logical meaning in the context of the written peice.
In this case, “Ron Paul Sided With Enron On California Energy Crisis”, taken in the context with the passages that follow it, can only mean one thing.
The other is to show how anything in comment #10 supports your claim, “You’re … semantic errors of your own (which undermine your arguments).”
No, I haven’t set myself up with any tasks.
If you think the fact that you are refuting what it “seems like” someone said instead of what they actually said is “irrelevant,” you are welcome to your opinion and I have made my point about the way you argue.
It is irrelevant because you said that it would be stronger without the “seems like..” language, and I pointed out that it is still true in spite of it.
And I referred you to where I refuted what he -actually- said, not just what it “seems like…” he said.
Nice way to focus on one little item while ignoring the majority of the post.
You’ve made your point about the way you argue quite well.
“Nice way to focus on one little item while ignoring the majority of the post.”
Perhaps I haven’t lost the bet that we’d see some anti-intellectual rhetoric from you after all. Never mind the details, is that it?
You have no basis for asserting the truth of the statement that you qualified with “seems like.” Your statement was:
“Seems like jclifford was trying to show that Ron Paul was in fact trying to promote the interests of Enron.”
Now, if the “seems like” remains in place, the statement is valid–because it is a statement of the way things “seem” to you rather than any assertion about reality or truth beyond your subjective interpretation.
But remove the “seems like” and you are left with:
“Jclifford was trying to show that Ron Paul was in fact trying to promote the interests of Enron.”
This still doesn’t address anything Jclifford actually said or did. Rather, it is a truth claim about what another person “was trying” to do.
What is your basis for asserting that you know what Jclifford was “trying” to do? Are you a psychic?
It’s not my subjective interpretation. I’m not a psychic. I don’t need to be: I can read quite well. The basis for knowing what jclifford was trying to do is what I listed in post #10 above, then summarized in post #14 above, did you miss it?
So, based on my objective reading of jclifford’s post, I can tell what he was trying to do: Link Ron Paul as an accomplice with Enron.
What I was trying to do, and what I accomplished in post #10, was show that my claim above is true.
What are you trying to do?
Damn. He IS psychic. You don’t understand, Ralph. See, all you have to do is make a list, then summarize it, and BAM, you KNOW what someone is trying to do. Believe me, it’s not going to be what they SAY they are doing.
That’s the same way they know about the U.N. conspiracy.
Uh, no. I demonstrated why the excerpts I quoted had the characteristics I claimed they had, thereby making them useless in supporting jclifford’s conclusion.
Since jclifford did not say what he was doing with that post, the reader has to take his goal from the context of what he wrote. I did that in post #10, where I also showed why jclifford’s argument was invalid.
If you think I did not, please show me why.