If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US News)   Ron Paul quietly mumbles something as staff turns off auditorium lights   (usnews.com) divider line 53
    More: Sad, Ron Paul, White House correspondent, political cartoons  
•       •       •

6144 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 9:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-11 09:52:39 AM
6 votes:
As much as I like the libertarians....they've got issues. for starters, a solid third of the libertarians in the midstate seem to be thinly disguised racists. which, I grant you, is better than the local GOP, who seem to be mostly out of the closet with their racism....but still. I despise racists. the other problem i've got with the libertarians around here is they seem to believe that being looted and pillaged by a corporation is some sort of honor. they LOVE to get screwed over by a corporation - comcast, marcellus shale, tyco electronics...they LURVE to see their jobs outsourced, their money taken, rights trampled on...to them, it's a reason to celebrate. IMHO anyone who trusts Comcast to behave themselves without some sort form of outside regulation is an idiot. those sons of biatches would slap a meter on the internet and expect you to pay top dollar just to read the news or access your twitter feed.

so...as much as I like the theory behind the libertarians, what they practice isn't anywhere near the reality. and they really really gotta dump the racists.
2012-11-11 10:58:08 AM
4 votes:

Shaggy_C: GAT_00: RON PAUL is somewhere between Grandpa Simpson and Time Cube on the relevancy scale. Crazy old man who doesn't know a damn thing about anything but somehow has millions of deluded fans who hang on his every word like a cult.

"Doesn't know a damn thing"? He has a very strong understanding of the federal reserve system and various economic theories, particularly the Austrian school. .


This is the equivalent of saying "He's a great doctor, particularly in the fields of phrenology and leech application".
2012-11-11 08:50:27 AM
4 votes:
RON PAUL is somewhere between Grandpa Simpson and Time Cube on the relevancy scale. Crazy old man who doesn't know a damn thing about anything but somehow has millions of deluded fans who hang on his every word like a cult.
2012-11-11 07:38:57 AM
4 votes:
dtdstudios.com
2012-11-11 12:15:54 PM
3 votes:
i47.photobucket.com
2012-11-11 09:54:08 AM
3 votes:

yousaywut: Boxcutta: The fruit of his loins is in Senate so his awful ideas live on, they're just spouted from underneath a poodle toupe.

I'de watch the next couple of election cycles as well. His followers really jumped up into quite a few state level R leadership positions. Some of his (no way in hell ever gonna get done) policies were quite extreme. But he did have a few implimentable ideas that were quite realistic.


Which ones specifically? Rolling back the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because those lunch counter owners would have eventually done the right thing because of the invisible hand or something.
2012-11-11 07:41:29 AM
3 votes:

St_Francis_P: He has Friends in High Places.


He must. Don't get me wrong, it's good to hear a fresh new take on things, even if it is wrapped in total batshiat crazy, but he was never EVER a serious candidate. Yet he gets more publicity than someone such as, say Jill Stein, who has a completely reasonable left wing platform.
2012-11-11 01:17:08 AM
3 votes:
sorry, Ron, there are reasons for having a Federal government
2012-11-11 02:31:51 PM
2 votes:
img818.imageshack.us

If you spend decades telling everyone that the world is going to end tomorrow unless we do what you say, eventually people will quit listening.
2012-11-11 12:00:27 PM
2 votes:

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Paul said Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney "was hit because ... one issue he was correct on, he opposed the [auto industry] bailouts, and the people in the Midwest voted against him: 'Oh, we have to be taken care of.'"

I keep hearing this and 'takers' and 'Santa Claus', and I have to wonder how close we are to a Tea Party candidate just up and saying 'Mussolini was right'.


Well, they're already trying to reclaim McCarthy, why not?
2012-11-11 11:56:33 AM
2 votes:

Smackledorfer: Infernalist: CynicalLA: yousaywut: The only other one I thought he would get away with would be telling the DEA to stand down on the war on drugs

The war on drugs employs a lot of people and no politician will touch that.

Bingo. There's too much money being made on both sides for the 'war on drugs' to ever be canceled or won.

Odd, I keep seeing never never never but I also just saw a few states legalize and a dozen states decriminalize in the past decade.


If you consider pot to be a serious component of the war on drugs, sure.
2012-11-11 10:47:57 AM
2 votes:

clambam: There seems to be an elegiac feeling, in this and other threads today, about how "it's over." America's greatness is behind us. There's no way of getting out from under the crushing federal debt. Obama's plan doesn't begin to make a dent in it and no one is willing to make the hard decision that can save us fiscally.


Not me. I felt that way in 1992, that America was done and Japan was winning, and then Japan cratered and the Internet exploded. I'm the libbiest lib that ever libbed, but I have full faith that the crazy experiment in brilliant chaos called the United States will reinvent itself yet again and come roaring back.
2012-11-11 10:44:51 AM
2 votes:

Smackledorfer:

Would it have mattered? If the media gave RP all the time in the world, would it have mattered once they got a few states into the primaries anyways?


probably not...but that's rather the point, isn't it? NOTHING would have led to a Ron Paul victory on the convention floor. he just didn't have the numbers to back him...and yet, the GOP crushed the Paulites and ejected them from the convention floor. there was absolutely no reason to treat Ron Paul supporters like that...it literally cost the Republicans nothing: not time, not money, not support...they could have let the RP supporters do their little dance and gone straight on to confirming Romney as the candidate - but the GOP leadership smashed them down, and ejected RP delegates from the convention.

that says more about the GOP than it ever will about the Ron Paul team.
2012-11-11 10:23:38 AM
2 votes:

Shaggy_C: "Doesn't know a damn thing"? He has a very strong understanding of the federal reserve system and various economic theories, particularly the Austrian school.


The Austrian School is the Creationism of economics. He understands the Federal Reserve system so much, he wants to replace the system with the very thing it was created to replace due to the inadequacies of the old system.
2012-11-11 10:08:45 AM
2 votes:

WitchyWoman: How can a doctor have such a cavalier attitude about the livelihood of thousands of people?


www.clevelandleader.com

/It's not a Godwin if it's true.
2012-11-11 10:07:06 AM
2 votes:
www.freedomsphoenix.com
2012-11-11 09:49:27 AM
2 votes:

Shaggy_C: He has a very strong understanding of the federal reserve system and various economic theories, particularly the Austrian school


I stand by my point. Understanding an idiotic economic system that has utterly failed to deliver in any economy doesn't mean you know something of value.
2012-11-11 09:46:41 AM
2 votes:

Shaggy_C: GAT_00: RON PAUL is somewhere between Grandpa Simpson and Time Cube on the relevancy scale. Crazy old man who doesn't know a damn thing about anything but somehow has millions of deluded fans who hang on his every word like a cult.

"Doesn't know a damn thing"? He has a very strong understanding of the federal reserve system and various economic theories, particularly the Austrian school. There's nothing wrong with his views from a conceptual framework, but they don't work in a world where the United States is depended upon for both economic and military security worldwide. If he were a candidate in say, a Liechtenstein or Monaco, his ideas would be quite compelling.


But how would he dodge answering questions on his personal socially conservative worldview on issues if he didn't have "States Rights" to fall back on? Are Lichtenstein and Monaco hotbeds of John Birch conspiracy theory worldviews and I just didn't know it?

No one finds Ron Paul appealing other than a tiny minority of American Republicans.
2012-11-11 09:45:50 AM
2 votes:
FTFA: Paul said Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney "was hit because ... one issue he was correct on, he opposed the [auto industry] bailouts, and the people in the Midwest voted against him: 'Oh, we have to be taken care of.'"

Consistent for a "libertarian" I guess. Aaaaand that's one of the reasons libertarians are useless at actually running a country. It's pretty much completely proven fact* that:
1 - Automakers could never have found the private money to go through bankruptcy without government help
2 - The domestic supply chains would collapse right after the automakers
3 - Millions more would end up unemployed than actually did

So fark you, Ron Paul, glad YOU'RE the one now unemployed.

* fact as accepted by the reality-based community, void in Republican circles and where otherwise prohibited
2012-11-11 09:27:22 AM
2 votes:
The fruit of his loins is in Senate so his awful ideas live on, they're just spouted from underneath a poodle toupe.
2012-11-11 09:18:39 AM
2 votes:

nekom: Yet he gets more publicity than someone such as, say Jill Stein, who has a completely reasonable left wing platform.


But you don't see a sh*t load of Redditors running around shouting "JILL STEIN" do you?
2012-11-11 07:17:07 AM
2 votes:
He certainly gets a lot of press for a fringe candidate.
2012-11-11 01:57:50 PM
1 votes:

Kibbler: TheEdibleSnuggie: I'm libertarian and distrust corporations as much as I do the government, and I'm VERY anti-consumerist.

Curious what you mean by that. For me, one of the earliest (and most important) forms of consumerism was food labeling. How much fat, cholesterol, salt and sugar is in this product? Not to mention a list of the horrible chemical preservatives and coloring agents used. My mom has to eat a very sodium-restricted diet. Forty years ago, she would just have to die, because she would be eating food loaded to the gills with salt. Now we can choose foods that are low- or zero-sodium. And as a result, there are many food producers who provide foods tailored for people with special dietetic needs.

Are you opposed to food labeling? God knows the corporations were when it was first pushed. "END OF LIBERTY," they screamed, "END OF AMERICA. GUBBMINT INTRUSION."

Same thing when the government required seat belts in all cars. How they screamed! "THEY CAN'T TELL US HOW TO RUN OUR BUSINESSES!"

Are mandatory seat belts something you oppose?


1) I think you have anti-consumerist confused with anti-regulation. Those are two different things.

The simple libertarian basis behind government is this: Maximum freedom/ liberty/ whatever you want to call it; with minimal government intrusion. Government's role should be to a) Promote healthy competition by drafting policies that encourage growth and investment; b) Protect its citizens from corruption and coercion (regardless of the initial source).

I don't have a problem with food labeling. That's giving you, the consumer the power to make choices that affect your life and well being. No corporation should have the power to decide what, and how much of a substance you get to put into your body- unless you make the personal choice to do so.

Seatbelt laws work much the same way, though it's common sense that belts save lives; if you choose to go without and get into a serious accident- you have to deal the with consequences of that choice. I don't think seatbelt laws should be primary offenses, however.

So when I say I'm anti-consumerist, that means I'm against being force-fed dogma of always needing to have the 'next best thing.' To wear or use a certain brand because it's associated with a various lifestyle or personality type. I believe that if you have a brand- that's great, but so are many others. So I don't get caught up in all that riff-raff.

2) I'm not anti-regulation. I'm against OVER-regulation, or knee-jerk regulation. I believe in the 'invisible hand' theory of government regulation where state or federal policy is created and used as a guide by which safe, efficient, fair, and honorable business is conducted. I think there is too much of this mentality that government can solve all of our problems with the pen. As opposed to a much broader thought that perhaps all that is needed is a bit of self-control and moderation, COMBINED with simple regulation. When laws are simply drafted because of broad-based incompetency due to lack of federal oversight of laws already on the books...then that's just asinine.
2012-11-11 01:12:09 PM
1 votes:
I think Paul is a good "springboard" into challenging the GOP paradigm. But if you get hung up on him as a person, instead of him as someone who was able to question the GOP doctrine (how successfully is up for debate), then you get lost in some of his more... eccentric views.

Ron Paul got me off the GOP establishment's teat in 2007. But I continued to develop and rethink my political views; he is not the be-all end-all of libertarian leaning Republicans.

For example, I'm not a dogmatic libertarian. I don't think government is evil and has no place. I certainly believe in government's role in infrastructure, utilities, public services, safety net, defense, etc. The scale of that involvement, I think, is out of control right now. But that doesn't mean I think we need to start just slashing and burning without thinking through syllogistic effects or planning for mitigation and transitional measures.

I also am not really into the whole propensity for attracting racists. I don't think that libertarianism is racist, but I think that racists have the ability to hijack it a lot easier than we are comfortable admitting.

Any way, I respect the hell out of RP, and am grateful in his movement's role in breaking me out of the neoconservative hivemind. But I'm not exactly getting in line to eat a mile of his shiat just to see where it came from. And for some reason, that line seems to be very long, and has a lot of weirdos in it.
2012-11-11 01:01:35 PM
1 votes:
there are bits and pieces of wisdom in Ron Paul, he just has a bad way of explaining it and comes across as a nut job to some.

He would be about the only republican I would vote for
2012-11-11 12:16:09 PM
1 votes:
"one issue he was correct on, he opposed the [auto industry] bailouts, and the people in the Midwest voted against him: 'Oh, we have to be taken care of'"

He says this shiat right out in the open. He would have said exactly the same about the impact of Sandy on the east coast. "Oh, we have to be taken care of."

Yes, RON PAUL, we believe in not simply allowing catastrophes to occur and then we just suffer through them and make no attempt to ameliorate them. We think that the way we just slid into the Depression and then wallowed in it for 10 years was a mistake. We believe in having fire departments that are paid for collectively but only provide service to homes and buildings that are actually on fire. We don't believe in having corporate fire departments that roll up to your house and watch it burn to the farking ground because you couldn't afford the SuperService plan.

Yes, RON PAUL. That's what we believe. Yes, we want to be slaves to the kind of tyrannical government that violently forces us to avoid another Depression, that violently forces us to have fire and police protection, that violently forces us to have roads and bridges and environmental safeguards. You may now proceed to college campuses and spread the word.

Bye bye.
2012-11-11 12:03:50 PM
1 votes:

Smackledorfer: Infernalist: If you consider pot to be a serious component of the war on drugs, sure.

How do you define serious? I've seen a variety of citations regarding how much money cartels earn off it and it seems pretty serious to me.

I've seen an assload of statistics regarding how penalized people are for either doing nothing worse than having some pot on them or having pot in conjunction with something else leading to an increased sentence. That seems serious.


You want serious? Look at how many people get arrested on pot-related offenses, consider that you JUST NOW IN THIS THREAD agreed that the war on drugs employs a lot of people, and think about how much employment was directly related to pot. Ya, its farking serious.


And what I'm saying is that pot is, to me, a minor aspect of the overall war on drugs. Do agencies and departments make good money off of it? Sure. Will they lose some money as it's slowly legalized? Absolutely.

But those are really minor and nearly insignificant amounts when compared to how much money is made off of things like Heroine and Cocaine.
2012-11-11 11:51:30 AM
1 votes:

yousaywut: But I am sure you are aware of the fact that the letter you are speaking of was written by another and completely disavowed.


If I remember correctly it was avowed, then disavowed, then avowed, then disavowed, and at no point did RP give any of the money earned via racist newsletters with his name at the top back. And how many years did he apparently fail to even READ the newsletters he was profiting from?

So ya, not quite as squeaky clean as you think.

yousaywut: Most everything else I read was going to be a fight with congress which means it wouldn't have happened.


Well, nothing is a better reason to vote for a guy than "none of his crazy would make it through congress, so it's cool" A better solution would be for you libertarians (or whatever word you personally want to call yourself) to find a candidate who supports the things you like (like getting out of the military) and not the crazy shiat you don't. If the only aspects of Ron Paul you like are drugs and foreign policy, you might find yourself more appropriately lined up with a liberal and not a libertarian. It always surprises me how many ron paul supporters eventually fall back on only liking his liberal ideas and hating the rest. If you feel that way, why support him?

yousaywut: If he made it that far congress would have had to drop the partisan bs and learn to compromise and I really don't see that as a bad thing do you?


Ah, he'll be so divisive the legislature will start to fart rainbows.
2012-11-11 11:49:37 AM
1 votes:

CynicalLA: yousaywut: The only other one I thought he would get away with would be telling the DEA to stand down on the war on drugs

The war on drugs employs a lot of people and no politician will touch that.


Bingo. There's too much money being made on both sides for the 'war on drugs' to ever be canceled or won.
2012-11-11 11:24:27 AM
1 votes:
Paul said Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney "was hit because ... one issue he was correct on, he opposed the [auto industry] bailouts, and the people in the Midwest voted against him: 'Oh, we have to be taken care of.'"

I keep hearing this and 'takers' and 'Santa Claus', and I have to wonder how close we are to a Tea Party candidate just up and saying 'Mussolini was right'.
2012-11-11 11:14:53 AM
1 votes:

Shaggy_C: clambam: Sorry, I don't buy it. How could we go from a surplus and a happily chugging economy to the brink of disaster in just twelve years?

There was no surplus and there was a recession in the early 2000s caused by the dot-com collapse. Even without Bush tax cuts the budget deficit would have been pretty bad for several years. Same goes for the economy in general - the deregulation was the result of 90s-era policy, and a Dem in the White House would have faced the same meltdown.


There was a surplus (jeez, where the hell were you?) and while the economy was due for a correction, the Dot Com collapse was exacerbated by Bush's relentless economic pessimism during the campaign which he frantically tried to reverse once he was elected. As for the "Dot Com collapse" itself... well, you'll note how the Internet never made a recovery from that unheralded disaster, there are virtually no software companies left, no one is making any money at all on line... The housing crash is a more serious issue and I suppose you can make the argument the sector was overvalued. However, that's true of virtually any commodity (how much is your Lexus really worth?) and I don't see why a prudently regulated housing market could not have continued to grow along with the economy.

Once again, in your eagerness to establish that all good emanates from repubs and all evil from Democrats, you've found it necessary to rewrite history in the most hilariously wrong-headed way possible. And you wonder why people are laughing at you?
2012-11-11 11:08:03 AM
1 votes:

Shaggy_C: GAT_00: RON PAUL is somewhere between Grandpa Simpson and Time Cube on the relevancy scale. Crazy old man who doesn't know a damn thing about anything but somehow has millions of deluded fans who hang on his every word like a cult.

"Doesn't know a damn thing"? He has a very strong understanding of the federal reserve system and various economic theories, particularly the Austrian school. There's nothing wrong with his views from a conceptual framework, but they don't work in a world where the United States is depended upon for both economic and military security worldwide. If he were a candidate in say, a Liechtenstein or Monaco, his ideas would be quite compelling.


The Austrian school is a massive joke in the field of economics. See this
2012-11-11 11:00:48 AM
1 votes:
Just another Republican politician. Republican. Politician. Not a libertarian. Republican. Life long politician.
2012-11-11 10:56:33 AM
1 votes:

nekom: St_Francis_P: He has Friends in High Places.

He must. Don't get me wrong, it's good to hear a fresh new take on things, even if it is wrapped in total batshiat crazy, but he was never EVER a serious candidate. Yet he gets more publicity than someone such as, say Jill Stein, who has a completely reasonable left wing platform.


Ron Paul was a cult of personality thing. Most of the people I know who call themselves "Libertarians" don't have the courage of their convictions and gladly accept every form of government assistance they can find. Most of them work for a governmental agency of one form or another. It's easy to dismiss them as hypocrites, but that implies they're self aware enough to understand they're living a contradiction. I think mostly they're just caught up in Paul's personality. Kind of like people who passionately sing along with the song on the radio, but get the lyrics wrong.
2012-11-11 10:56:28 AM
1 votes:

clambam: Sorry, I don't buy it. How could we go from a surplus and a happily chugging economy to the brink of disaster in just twelve years?


There was no surplus and there was a recession in the early 2000s caused by the dot-com collapse. Even without Bush tax cuts the budget deficit would have been pretty bad for several years. Same goes for the economy in general - the deregulation was the result of 90s-era policy, and a Dem in the White House would have faced the same meltdown.
2012-11-11 10:50:53 AM
1 votes:

yousaywut: Boxcutta: yousaywut: Boxcutta: The fruit of his loins is in Senate so his awful ideas live on, they're just spouted from underneath a poodle toupe.

I'de watch the next couple of election cycles as well. His followers really jumped up into quite a few state level R leadership positions. Some of his (no way in hell ever gonna get done) policies were quite extreme. But he did have a few implimentable ideas that were quite realistic.

Which ones specifically? Rolling back the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because those lunch counter owners would have eventually done the right thing because of the invisible hand or something.

Uh huh, Did you actually want an answer or are you just going to make up what you want to hear?


You're free to answer for the Pauls' positions if you want. I feel that libertarianism is a terrible idea, but surely you're aware that Ron Paul has a history of having overly racist literature distributed in his newsletter and Rand Paul has expressly said that the forced desegregation of lunch counters by the Federal Government is equivalent to telling private restaurant owners that they have to allow people to bring guns into their stores.
2012-11-11 10:44:35 AM
1 votes:
Ron Paul is at best an economic libertarian, socially he is more Republican than libertarian.

Don't let me even get into Rand Paul.

/Of course if self-proclaimed 'evangelical libertarians' can exist, we know the brand is losing it original meaning.
//Will real libertarians now become populists?
2012-11-11 10:43:45 AM
1 votes:
There seems to be an elegiac feeling, in this and other threads today, about how "it's over." America's greatness is behind us. There's no way of getting out from under the crushing federal debt. Obama's plan doesn't begin to make a dent in it and no one is willing to make the hard decision that can save us fiscally.

Sorry, I don't buy it. How could we go from a surplus and a happily chugging economy to the brink of disaster in just twelve years? Oh yeah, Bush, repubs, two unfunded wars, housing collapse... but seriously, was the economy unbeknownst to us so fragile in 1999 it could not survive eight years of garish stupidity? I just don't buy it. This country is still the greatest economic juggernaut the world has ever seen, it's come back from worse and it will come back from this. Raising taxes on the wealthy may not solve all our problems but it's a start. Cutting social welfare programs will be necessary too, but it's not the end. Military bloat must be reduced drastically, but in a way that will not leave our country open to attack (to be honest with you, this is not as big an issue as some people seem to think).

Obama was elected by a majority of this country. He was elected on a certain platform in 2008 and re-elected on essentially the same platfiorm in 2012. The American people obviously wants to see that platform implemented. Why not let him do it? Are you afraid that Obama's policies will be successful? Can anything his policies have in store equal the danger of the fiscal cliff? If you can't join in, at least get out of the way. Because to deliberately force the country into disaster would indeed be treason.
2012-11-11 10:41:55 AM
1 votes:
As a Kentuckian, I hope somebody punches him in the nuts for creating that rotten crotchfruit who managed to do the impossible and make Kentucky voters look dumber.
2012-11-11 10:35:09 AM
1 votes:
Oppose the auto bailouts and watch mysteriously as manufacturing infrastructure permanently shifts to an asian country where their government is bailing out their auto industry.

Also, Mitt MAY not have lost as many points as he did over the auto industry if he hadn't lied so goddamn farking much about it. He is lucky he got a MI or OH vote at all after the final Jeep lie.

I can respect the solution of "fark everyone let the market sort it out" as a preferential alternative to government-assisted regulatory-capturing monopolies ruling the country. What I can't respect is when the proponents of such a solution are the first in line to support the latter anyways; something the Republicans have shown themselves to be right on top of every single time they get power.

Health care is the simplest example. It very obviously doesn't function well without regulations, but they don't deregulate it. Instead they give us part D. It's costs are hidden when its attached to businesses, but they don't care about that. Their states' rights attitude falls apart when they want one state to be able to sell insurance to the other 49, thus taking away their regulatory abilities, as well as any hope of transparency to the consumer. They can't even get on board with a health care exchange.

These people understand jack and shiat about the free market and are just a cobbled together mix of robber barons and an ignorant poor who skipped their history classes. Then they all get together and scream free market at us despite not having a clue what the invisible hand even is, how it functions, what externalities, what a tragedy of the commons is, etc.

fark that bullshiat, and Ron Paul and his gold standard can suck my balls.
2012-11-11 10:23:10 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: As much as I like the libertarians....they've got issues. for starters, a solid third of the libertarians in the midstate seem to be thinly disguised racists. which, I grant you, is better than the local GOP, who seem to be mostly out of the closet with their racism....but still. I despise racists. the other problem i've got with the libertarians around here is they seem to believe that being looted and pillaged by a corporation is some sort of honor. they LOVE to get screwed over by a corporation - comcast, marcellus shale, tyco electronics...they LURVE to see their jobs outsourced, their money taken, rights trampled on...to them, it's a reason to celebrate. IMHO anyone who trusts Comcast to behave themselves without some sort form of outside regulation is an idiot. those sons of biatches would slap a meter on the internet and expect you to pay top dollar just to read the news or access your twitter feed.

so...as much as I like the theory behind the libertarians, what they practice isn't anywhere near the reality. and they really really gotta dump the racists.


I have been lurking on this board for more than six years. I've been there since the days of czarangelus and all the various alts of Afternoon Dog Delight.

You've changed a bit, Weaver, and the American right has gotten even further unhinged. The gulf between you and them is so vast now that I can't believe I considered you a right-winger then.

This is not a complaint :)
2012-11-11 10:22:11 AM
1 votes:
The comments are full of automatons with poor reasoning skills and a dismal grasp on American history. I hate every single last one of them. Idiots being guided by someone because he shows them a "truth" that doesn't and has never existed.
2012-11-11 09:58:56 AM
1 votes:

toomuchwhargarbl: But how would he dodge answering questions on his personal socially conservative worldview on issues if he didn't have "States Rights" to fall back on? Are Lichtenstein and Monaco hotbeds of John Birch conspiracy theory worldviews and I just didn't know it?


Lichtenstein didn't give women the right to vote until the 1980s, and abortion is entirely illegal in all circumstances. Their tax rate is 1.2%. It's about the closest to a Ron Paul ideal as you can get in the real world - aside from the fact that the country is almost entirely dependent upon external nations to keep the economy running.
2012-11-11 09:57:27 AM
1 votes:
Paul said Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney "was hit because ... one issue he was correct on, he opposed the [auto industry] bailouts, and the people in the Midwest voted against him: 'Oh, we have to be taken care of.'"

fark you, Mr. Paul. That wasn't just about certain people "wanting to be taken care of." It was a measure to stop our economy, as in the U.S. economy, from completely melting down.
2012-11-11 09:56:27 AM
1 votes:

toomuchwhargarbl: Weaver, despite their loud minority status on the internets Libertarians are less than 1% of the population, and have been constantly so for 30 years. they can't afford to dump anyone. Racists, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shiat-kickers or Methodists.


Maybe the methodists.
2012-11-11 09:55:30 AM
1 votes:

Boxcutta: yousaywut: Boxcutta: The fruit of his loins is in Senate so his awful ideas live on, they're just spouted from underneath a poodle toupe.

I'de watch the next couple of election cycles as well. His followers really jumped up into quite a few state level R leadership positions. Some of his (no way in hell ever gonna get done) policies were quite extreme. But he did have a few implimentable ideas that were quite realistic.

Which ones specifically? Rolling back the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because those lunch counter owners would have eventually done the right thing because of the invisible hand or something.


Uh huh, Did you actually want an answer or are you just going to make up what you want to hear?
2012-11-11 09:55:25 AM
1 votes:
Weaver, despite their loud minority status on the internets Libertarians are less than 1% of the population, and have been constantly so for 30 years. they can't afford to dump anyone. Racists, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shiat-kickers or Methodists.
2012-11-11 09:45:30 AM
1 votes:

Shaggy_C: GAT_00: RON PAUL is somewhere between Grandpa Simpson and Time Cube on the relevancy scale. Crazy old man who doesn't know a damn thing about anything but somehow has millions of deluded fans who hang on his every word like a cult.

"Doesn't know a damn thing"? He has a very strong understanding of the federal reserve system and various economic theories, particularly the Austrian school. There's nothing wrong with his views from a conceptual framework, but they don't work in a world where the United States is depended upon for both economic and military security worldwide. If he were a candidate in say, a Liechtenstein or Monaco, his ideas would be quite compelling.


Sorry - let's try that again. You have a point there - but it kind of brings us back to the old "galt's gulch" conundrum. Very, very little of the world is tiny enclaves of wealthy people. In fact, almost none of the world can be that. The fact remains that a man like Ron Paul has very little practical application in the real world - at least in the field of governance. And in my reading of TFA, he acknowledges as much.
2012-11-11 09:34:54 AM
1 votes:

Boxcutta: The fruit of his loins is in Senate so his awful ideas live on, they're just spouted from underneath a poodle toupe.


I'de watch the next couple of election cycles as well. His followers really jumped up into quite a few state level R leadership positions. Some of his (no way in hell ever gonna get done) policies were quite extreme. But he did have a few implimentable ideas that were quite realistic.

//Yes I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries.

/No I didn't vote for romney in the general
2012-11-11 09:34:31 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: RON PAUL is somewhere between Grandpa Simpson and Time Cube on the relevancy scale. Crazy old man who doesn't know a damn thing about anything but somehow has millions of deluded fans who hang on his every word like a cult.


"Doesn't know a damn thing"? He has a very strong understanding of the federal reserve system and various economic theories, particularly the Austrian school. There's nothing wrong with his views from a conceptual framework, but they don't work in a world where the United States is depended upon for both economic and military security worldwide. If he were a candidate in say, a Liechtenstein or Monaco, his ideas would be quite compelling.
2012-11-11 09:31:15 AM
1 votes:
So he's retiring? Guess he'll still tilt at Government windmills or something.

His fixation on having a government too weak to work is really strange.
2012-11-11 07:53:18 AM
1 votes:
Bawwww.
2012-11-11 02:39:47 AM
1 votes:
Now he can go back to his chosen field of refusing to give women abortions.
 
Displayed 53 of 53 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report