Options

Ron Paul, The Conspiracy '08

1356762

Posts

  • Options
    GoodOmensGoodOmens Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    well, I guess I'm really asking why everyone is so focussed on crazy ron paul when he doesn't have a dentist's chance in japan of being nominated and some of the front-runners have as good as stated that they will start torturing muslims on the day they are sworn in

    First, a "dentist's chance in Japan"? What the heck does that mean?

    I think a big part of Ron Paul's appeal is that he's very willing to tell people what they want to hear...that is, if your life sucks, it's not your fault, it's the system. The entire government is out to strip you of your precious freedom, and by returning you that freedom, he'll create a utopia. He tells people that their failure is not their fault. That's an appealing message for many. Plus, he's a change from the rather boring, beige candidates that we generally see. We watch a campaign that lasts roughly a billion years, featuring debates that are as spontaneous as a tea ceremony and as real as the WWE. And then we get this fractally weird guy who says stuff that nobody else will.

    See Perot, Ross.

    There's a car in my neighborhood with a bumper sticker for Mike Gravel and a light up plastic thing on the roof (like pizza delivery cars use) for Ron Paul. I guess this person is bipartisian in his love of crazy.

    GoodOmens on
    steam_sig.png
    IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
  • Options
    The Raging PlatypusThe Raging Platypus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    GoodOmens wrote: »

    First, a "dentist's chance in Japan"? What the heck does that mean?

    He's just referring to the stereotype of Japanese people not being fans of preventative dental care.

    The Raging Platypus on
    Quid wrote: »
    YOU'RE A GOD DAMN PLATYPUS.
    PSN Name: MusingPlatypus
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Huckabee is the only Republican candidate I've seen who doesn't look like a genuine asshole. Not that I agree with him on most points, though. He just doesn't seem to be a toned-down, male Ann Coulter like the rest of the Republican candidates.

    Ann Coulter? Msot of them are running as a flavor of Bush. Gualani is Bush Extra Strength. Romney is Bush Lite. McCain is Bush Spineless Apologist

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    GoodOmens wrote: »

    First, a "dentist's chance in Japan"? What the heck does that mean?

    He's just referring to the stereotype of Japanese people not being fans of preventative dental care.

    How charming of him. I certainly feel more inclined to listen to this guy now! That's so witty and fresh.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    GoodOmensGoodOmens Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    GoodOmens wrote: »

    First, a "dentist's chance in Japan"? What the heck does that mean?

    He's just referring to the stereotype of Japanese people not being fans of preventative dental care.

    Huh. I can honestly say I've never heard that stereotype.
    If it was "a dentist's chance in England," that would make sense. Or, say, "a used schoolgirl panty's chance in Japan."

    If you're going to rely on asinine stereotypes to make a point, it's important to use those that people will recognize.

    GoodOmens on
    steam_sig.png
    IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
  • Options
    jotatejotate Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I think it's funny that people have such a problem with the potential that Ron Paul will veto whatever congress sends him regardless of how necessary or reasonable it is. On two points, the latter more relevant to the discussion:

    1) Look at who's sitting in the chair right now and the things he's chosen to veto. Holy hell.

    2) All the democrats think he's crazy...all the republicans think he's crazy...for the shit that obviously is good for the country, I'm pretty sure the bipartisan overturning of said vetoes would be unprecedented.

    To answer the questions as to why I asked for the "he's a bigot" argument to hold off, I wanted at least the initial focus to be on his monetary policy. Which it was, so I'm pleased.

    I still think he's the best choice among the candidates we've got going right now. He's crazy, yeah. He's going to *try* to do a lot of shit that no one is going to agree with and that is completely outdated, most or all of which will be check'd, balance'd, and thrown right out the window by Congress. He's also going to actually do a bunch of shit to revolutionize the corrupt system of government that is legitimately dooming us to either economic melt down or militarily pissing off every other country to the point where the UN declares us an enemy combatant.

    He's stuck 200 years in the past but he's the only candidate looking more than 4 years down the road.

    jotate on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    GoodOmens wrote: »
    GoodOmens wrote: »

    First, a "dentist's chance in Japan"? What the heck does that mean?

    He's just referring to the stereotype of Japanese people not being fans of preventative dental care.

    Huh. I can honestly say I've never heard that stereotype.
    If it was "a dentist's chance in England," that would make sense. Or, say, "a used schoolgirl panty's chance in Japan."

    If you're going to rely on asinine stereotypes to make a point, it's important to use those that people will recognize.

    105.jpg
    106.jpg

    PS: Ron Paul is really, really shockingly awful at thinking and not a very nice man to boot.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    LibrarianThorneLibrarianThorne Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Man, there's a Ron Paul group on campus, and I find myself agreeing with them. I would love to see Ron Paul nominated for President because, really, how could the Democrats have an easier target during the campaign? Ron Paul is a goddamned bullseye for the Democratic party and I personally would love to see the campaign ads more than anything.

    "Ron Paul? Are you fucking serious? Paid for by Hillary Clinton."

    LibrarianThorne on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Huckabee is the only Republican candidate I've seen who doesn't look like a genuine asshole. Not that I agree with him on most points, though. He just doesn't seem to be a toned-down, male Ann Coulter like the rest of the Republican candidates.

    Ann Coulter? Msot of them are running as a flavor of Bush. Gualani is Bush Extra Strength. Romney is Bush Lite. McCain is Bush Spineless Apologist

    I think most of them are attempting to run as a flavor of Reagan with terrorists instead of communists.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    To answer the questions as to why I asked for the "he's a bigot" argument to hold off, I wanted at least the initial focus to be on his monetary policy. Which it was, so I'm pleased.

    See, I think it's the best point to start with, because I believe that the President should be there to represent ALL American citizens. So someone who has issues with equality should be immediately disqualified.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    suilimeA wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    suilimeA wrote: »
    And really it wouldn't be such a bad idea. It'd be pretty close to the way Rome elected consuls.

    And Rome was tits.
    Rome is a great example of how not to set up a republic.

    D:

    But...but...orgies and vomitoriums.

    Vomitoriums are boring.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    jotatejotate Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    To answer the questions as to why I asked for the "he's a bigot" argument to hold off, I wanted at least the initial focus to be on his monetary policy. Which it was, so I'm pleased.

    See, I think it's the best point to start with, because I believe that the President should be there to represent ALL American citizens. So someone who has issues with equality should be immediately disqualified.

    I don't disagree with you. It's not that I wanted to discourage people from talking about that point, simply that I didn't want them to completely breeze over my desire to talk about monetary policy by jumping straight to equality issues.

    jotate on
  • Options
    an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    "Ron Paul? Are you fucking serious? Paid for by Hillary Clinton."
    :^:

    I'm not a big Ron Paul fan, but I do like the fact that he's trying to pull the current pubs from neo-con back towards conservative. He's going way, way too far, but it is in the right direction. If there was someone to pull things back from social conservatives to fiscal conservatives, that again would be a good thing.

    an_alt on
    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
    If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
  • Options
    NavocNavoc Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Quazar wrote: »
    Ron Paul is an extreme. I think it's nice that he's bringing attention to bloated government agencies. It would nice if it sparked some change in efficiency, but he doesn't really have a shot of being elected
    Could you name an example of a government agency (preferabbly the multiple you referred to) that you see as bloated? Also, just to make sure, you are asserting that said government agencies would be more efficient if they were privatized, yes?
    Not to mention the fact that government employees essentially can't be fired and are typically lazy as hell. That definitely needs to change.

    Does anyone have a link to a study or something demonstrating that government employees tend to work less? Just curious if there is any evidence that government employees are inherently less efficient/hard working than private employees (I will be disappointed if there are not multiple posts referencing their anecdotal experience with gov. employees).

    Navoc on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Navoc wrote: »
    Not to mention the fact that government employees essentially can't be fired and are typically lazy as hell. That definitely needs to change.

    Does anyone have a link to a study or something demonstrating that government employees tend to work less? Just curious if there is any evidence that government employees are inherently less efficient/hard working than private employees (I will be disappointed if there are not multiple posts referencing their anecdotal experience with gov. employees).

    I know back when I worked for New York State I didn't do shit, but I most certainly could (and did!) get fired at a moment's notice. The only state job that has major protection against getting fired are teachers, and man, teachers get the short end of the stick salary- and benefits-wise for how important their jobs are, so I guess it's nice that they have at least one perk.

    edit: and I think the reason nobody did shit in my department had more to do with the fact that it was the IT department than the fact that we worked for the government.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I think most of the fiscal conservative GOP is a myth. Very few of them really cut spending they just funnel more cash into the army than social programs.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I think most of the fiscal conservative GOP is a myth. Very few of them really cut spending they just funnel more cash into the army than social programs.

    They cut taxes without cutting spending, which clearly must be better than the tax-and-spend policies they hate so much.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Some jobs in the military can get you nothing but free time. It's not uncommon for me to have a few days out of the month with nothing to do barring a customer coming in with some questions. Then again I also have a few days where I'll do nothing but work nonstop.And holy shit can you find some skate jobs while deployed.

    Quid on
  • Options
    JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Gaine wrote: »
    The very idea of a dual currency in a single country doesn't seem ... problematic?

    No doubt the thread's already gone elsewhere, but I saw this on the first page and thought I'd bring it up.

    We have many currencies in the US. There is the national currency, and a wide variety of local currencies. Most of these are for individual cities/towns, but some of them span multiple states.

    Jragghen on
  • Options
    jotatejotate Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Navoc wrote: »
    Quazar wrote: »
    Ron Paul is an extreme. I think it's nice that he's bringing attention to bloated government agencies. It would nice if it sparked some change in efficiency, but he doesn't really have a shot of being elected
    Could you name an example of a government agency (preferabbly the multiple you referred to) that you see as bloated? Also, just to make sure, you are asserting that said government agencies would be more efficient if they were privatized, yes?
    Not to mention the fact that government employees essentially can't be fired and are typically lazy as hell. That definitely needs to change.

    Does anyone have a link to a study or something demonstrating that government employees tend to work less? Just curious if there is any evidence that government employees are inherently less efficient/hard working than private employees (I will be disappointed if there are not multiple posts referencing their anecdotal experience with gov. employees).

    The FCC spending any amount of money on any amount of censorship enforcement is pretty fuck-drywall stupid.

    My mother works as a civilian for a group under the Air Force. She actually works in personnel and talks all the time over how incredibly incompetent you'd have to be to get fired. The amount of bureaucratic bullshit they have to go through to actually fire someone is apparently a deterrent to doing it. She has tons of stories of people who were caught sleeping on the job or taking 2 hour lunches *everyday* and the worst they get is a "Stop doing that."

    jotate on
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Disney Bux?

    I have this nagging feeling the motive behind instituting a dual currency system is to have an intermediary step before a single, gold-backed currency. Average guy sees the value of the Liberty Dollar grow in comparison to the USD, and doesn't place that in relation to international currencies, panics, switches all his assets from USD to Liberty Dollars. Did I get that right?

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    jotatejotate Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If that's the story, then he's either giving all his USD to someone who previously had the Liberty Dollars he bought, so the currency is just changing hands. That or the amount in the system is changing (more Liberty Dollars being printed thus the worth is going down or the USDs are being destroyed and making the relative value go up).

    And to everyone who immediately saw "dual currency" and jumped to "gold / silver been there done that" ... not exactly what I was talking about.

    jotate on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Most local currencies are basically Disney Bux. They aren't really legal tender and accepting them is purely voluntary. Having two kinds of dollars would force everyone to dual price everything making retail and business do a fuckton of more work to sell anything. You'd probably end up with various people accepting or rejecting only one form of currency amking buying things a pain in the ass. Or you'd be doing constant exchanged between currencies with diffirng values so you'd never know how much your money is actually worth.

    IIRC england did this once where the Tories had a land-based currency and the Whigs had a trade-based one.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    VerdancyVerdancy Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    I still think he's the best choice among the candidates we've got going right now. He's crazy, yeah. He's going to *try* to do a lot of shit that no one is going to agree with and that is completely outdated, most or all of which will be check'd, balance'd, and thrown right out the window by Congress. He's also going to actually do a bunch of shit to revolutionize the corrupt system of government that is legitimately dooming us to either economic melt down or militarily pissing off every other country to the point where the UN declares us an enemy combatant.

    In what bizzarro world is "too crazy to get things done" an attractive quality in a President? You are arguing that his incompetence will prevent him ending birthright citizenship/wrecking the economy? In any case, the idea that Congress will stop him neutering the Supreme Court's ability to overturn religious laws, but roll over and let him take their pork is ludicrous, and suggesting he'll improve America's foreign relations when he wants to withdraw from the UN and NATO is beyond belief.
    jotate wrote: »
    The FCC spending any amount of money on any amount of censorship enforcement is pretty fuck-drywall stupid.

    My mother works as a civilian for a group under the Air Force. She actually works in personnel and talks all the time over how incredibly incompetent you'd have to be to get fired. The amount of bureaucratic bullshit they have to go through to actually fire someone is apparently a deterrent to doing it. She has tons of stories of people who were caught sleeping on the job or taking 2 hour lunches *everyday* and the worst they get is a "Stop doing that."

    And your personal experience is persuassive how? Stop stalling and cite a major paper indicating that privitisation improves worker efficiency. In any case if you think a reprimand for sleeping on the job wouldn't fly in the private sector you've probably never worked in it, or have been very lucky in your choice of employment.

    Verdancy on
  • Options
    jotatejotate Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    In what bizzarro world is "too crazy to get things done" an attractive quality in a President? You are arguing that his incompetence will prevent him ending birthright citizenship/wrecking the economy? In any case, the idea that Congress will stop him neutering the Supreme Court's ability to overturn religious laws, but roll over and let him take their pork is ludicrous, and suggesting he'll improve America's foreign relations when he wants to withdraw from the UN and NATO is beyond belief.

    Yeah, his presidency would be a constant battle of Congress overriding his stupid ass ideals and him vetoing Congress's corrupt spending bullshit. At the very least, he would undo all of the ridiculous shit that Bush has done. If the only done by the next POTUS is undoing what Bush has fucked up, then sign me up. Ron Paul is the only one committed to doing that.
    (I will be disappointed if there are not multiple posts referencing their anecdotal experience with gov. employees).

    I wasn't trying to be persuasive, I was trying not to disappoint Navoc.

    jotate on
  • Options
    stiliststilist Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The cognitive dissonance Ron Paul supporters have is truly amazing. ‘There’s no way on Earth he’ll be elected. Even supposing he were, he wouldn’t accomplish anything. But I want him as president, in defiance of reason. A person who’s willing to replace flawed ideas with ideas that are even worse is the sort of guy I like.’

    stilist on
    I poop things on my site and twitter
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    so, there is some talk of him running as an independent, once he finally throws in the republican towel.

    There is no chance that he would steal more votes from the democtats than the republicans, right? I know his supporters are irrational, but they wouldn't turn around and vote for someone with a plan for universal healthcare, right? They are not that totally misguided, right?

    So, I guess it is a good thing, if only because it hurts the other republican candidates, and I really want to win.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    jotatejotate Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I feel pretty much the same way towards people supporting other candidates. It goes something like "Well, my person might actually win. Most of his/her ideas are the same as all the previous corrupt assholes that have held the office, but at least there might be someone else with good principles to run 4 years from now."

    Seriously, I don't understand the rationale for supporting any of the other candidates. Giuliani is running as the anti-terrorism candidate after he put New York's emergency call center in a building that had previously been attacked by terrorists, for fuck's sake. Romney doesn't believe in fucking science. Every "front running" candidate from both parties has resigned themselves to years more in Iraq.

    And Ron Paul supporters are cognitively dissonant. So be it.

    Let's move aside from the "RP supporters don't think straight" resolution for just a few more posts.

    Foreign policy. Particularly the blow back principle and the claim that our foreign policy has lead to the terrorism and hate for America that we find in the Middle East. Is he wrong there too? Because I find it pretty hard to believe that Islamic fundamentalists simply hate freedom and therefore must destroy the United States on principle. I get it that they're fucked up, but that's like crazy-psycho-cult on the millions of people scale.

    jotate on
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    Foreign policy. Particularly the blow back principle and the claim that our foreign policy has lead to the terrorism and hate for America that we find in the Middle East. Is he wrong there too? Because I find it pretty hard to believe that Islamic fundamentalists simply hate freedom and therefore must destroy the United States on principle. I get it that they're fucked up, but that's like crazy-psycho-cult on the millions of people scale.
    See, that's how it works. When he points to a problem, it is a real problem. He frequently has give at least an arguable expatiation of the cause.

    Then you get to the solution, and it is totally unfeasible, dangerous and short sighted.

    Yes, our current foreign policy is bad and is doing more harm than good. That does not mean all foreign policy is bad and that we should become more isolationist than we were before pearl harbor was bombed.

    edit:I was aiming for hyperbole there, but I missed the mark. Honestly, ron paul would almost certainly argue that Pearl Harbor was a response to our oil embargo. So, he would want us to be more isolationist than that. I lack the vocabulary to accurately describe it.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    stiliststilist Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Nobody’s forcing you to support Republican candidates. If you don’t like anybody, just don’t vote in the primaries (or vote for a different party).

    Also: Policy is not formed in a vacuum; all public statements derive from a deeper belief. This is the real problem with Paul—what he says may seem pretty reasonable, but his motivations are based in decidedly poor ideology. Yes, he would be restrained by compromise if elected, but the underlying thoughts should be enough to put anybody off.

    stilist on
    I poop things on my site and twitter
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If Bush has taught us anything it's a determined president can pretty much shit on everything with or without Congress' support

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    stiliststilist Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If Bush has taught us anything it's a determined president can pretty much shit on everything with or without Congress' support
    Also a valid point. Vetoes, signing statements, and the threat of curb-stomping allow for quite a lot of power.

    stilist on
    I poop things on my site and twitter
  • Options
    RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I just wish digg would shut up about Ron Paul. I mean one minute they're praising net neutrality to the ends of the earth, then the next those same people will just not stop about how great Ron Paul is. Before that it was Gravel. It's like they're hell-bent on having someone crazy as president.

    RandomEngy on
    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • Options
    stiliststilist Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    I just wish digg would shut up about Ron Paul. I mean one minute they're praising net neutrality to the ends of the earth, then the next those same people will just not stop about how great Ron Paul is. Before that it was Gravel. It's like they're hell-bent on having someone crazy as president.
    Digg seems to have a middle school mindset, so it’s not terribly surprising.

    stilist on
    I poop things on my site and twitter
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I pretty much digg down every mention of him I see.

    It's mainly an aesthetic statement.

    I tend to be very bored at work.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    AcidSerraAcidSerra Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    To put this the simplest way I know how, when what your doing is harmful, do something different is generally a good idea. However, there are good ways to be different, and bad ways to be different. Our foreign policy is shit, yes, changing it would be a good thing, yes, those two statements do not extend out to mean ignoring the rest of the world and separating ourselves from it as much as possible is a good thing.

    When faced with the decision of stay the god awful course or fuck ourselves over ten times worse, generally we consider it a sane option to stay the course. Sometimes it is also only through small, slow changes that anything of worth can be accomplished, and I can pretty well assure you that as much I'm not a fan of Hilary, she would work to enact at least some of those small slow changes. I cannot say the same of any Republican candidate, and that includes Ron Paul.

    AcidSerra on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Laws against sodomizing babies take a little freedom away too, but it doesn't follow that since a good deal of freedom is good, completely unfettered freedom is fuckawesome.

    The problem with the libertarian mindset is that they see it as a choice between extremist freedom and extremist totalitarian, which means that anyone who disagrees with them must be a totalitarian, and that since totalitarianism is wrong, extremist freedom must be the only answer.

    The opposition, however, sees it as a conflict as extremism vs. moderation. Unfortunately, the modern libertarian doesn't seem to see it that way, because the concept of "moderation" doesn't even enter the picture in their world view.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    suilimeA wrote: »
    Every regulatory agency takes a little freedom away from Americans.

    By the way:

    This. Is. A. Fucking. Lie.

    Positive freedom and negative freedom -- if you don't know the difference, you should probably stop having opinions on things, but I'll help you out and break this shit down for you.

    (1) Negative freedoms: Freedom from. These are the freedoms we're used to thinking about. Freedom from censorship, freedom from regulation, freedom from taxation.

    (2) Positive freedoms: Freedom to. These are the freedoms that affect our daily lives just as much, if not moreso, and yet are not enshrined a 220 year-old document, and so people have a tendency to forget about. Freedom to get a good education. Freedom to earn a living wage. Freedom to support your family.

    Or, in the case of OSHA: Freedom to not get your fucking limbs cut off at your job or at least if they do you can have some freedom to legal fucking recourse.

    So. No.

    You. Are. Wrong.

    I swear to god read some fucking political philosophy that happened after 1800

    Every time the power goes out in my neighborhood and I'm stuck in traffic for hours and hours because there are no traffice lights, I always smile at the thought that for this one particular day, I live in freedom from the unnecessary regulations that government sponsored traffic lights thrust upon us.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    AcidSerra wrote: »
    When faced with the decision of stay the god awful course or fuck ourselves over ten times worse, generally we consider it a sane option to stay the course.

    not that I disagree with anything in you post, but I hate hearing rhetoric that was essentially used to reelect a certain someone. And really the whole point is that it is a false dichotomy anyway, there are other options. meh.

    I'd lime the hell out of everything else there.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    stilist wrote: »
    Nobody’s forcing you to support Republican candidates. If you don’t like anybody, just don’t vote in the primaries (or vote for a different party).

    Also: Policy is not formed in a vacuum; all public statements derive from a deeper belief. This is the real problem with Paul—what he says may seem pretty reasonable, but his motivations are based in decidedly poor ideology. Yes, he would be restrained by compromise if elected, but the underlying thoughts should be enough to put anybody off.

    I'm not even sure how much of a compromise he would be restrained by. The democrats don't even have enough votes to override the filabuster, much less a Presidential veto. There's also the issues of presidential appointments, which is probably where Ron Paul could do the most harm in the long run. Want to see someone who's worse than than Michael Browne in FEMA? Worse than Roberts on the Supreme Court? Vote Ron Paul.
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    I just wish digg would shut up about Ron Paul. I mean one minute they're praising net neutrality to the ends of the earth, then the next those same people will just not stop about how great Ron Paul is. Before that it was Gravel. It's like they're hell-bent on having someone crazy as president.

    What I find amusing is this Christian Persecution complex they seem to have, where they think that everybody in the media is out to get him, and they seem to believe that the "smear campaign" against Ron Paul is somehow completely unprecedented and a strong sign that the world is shaking in their boots over the changing tide.

    Bill Clinton had Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, accusations that he murdered Vince Foster, the Path to 9/11, the Lewinsky incident blown completely out of proportion, etc. John McCain had that whole illegitimate black baby push poll. John Kerry had the Swift Veterans for truth. These are all examples of very negative campaigning. Citing a persons beliefs, statements, and voting record, and attempting to use that against them, is not negative compaigning. That's what people in a democracy should be doing. I wish that the Rondroids would understand the difference.

    Schrodinger on
This discussion has been closed.