Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by billwald, Jun 27, 2011.
Just to ask, instead of just posting a link with an exclamatory title for the thread, is it too much to ask to get you to post the salient details so we can figure out if it is a topic worth exploring?
This doesn't just go for you but it also goes for others too.
The problem is Ron Paul only articulates free market principles when it suits his audience. He parrots free market ideals when it suits his audience. He parrots dime store economics when it suits his audience. He is Keynesian when it suits his audience. He says what he thinks people want to hear. He is a conservative of convienience, not conviction. He is a psuedocon, pure and simple.
Brother Tom, you hit the nail on the head with this one.
Ron Paul stands no chance of being elected to anything other than what he is.
For Once I Have to Agree With the Leftist!
This almost scares me to say, but I agree with you guys on Ron Paul. He'd be very bad for America. Maybe even worse than BHO. Ow, ouch, that hurt!! :laugh:
See, I'm not really all that conservative. I'm a more independent than many of your liberal folks think.
Just out of curiosity, how many of you had this strange inclination to pinch yourself to see if you were still alive, not dreaming, or hallucinating??? :wavey:
Pastor Paul :type:
Okay, you guys are going to have to clue me in. What exactly was it that Ron Paul said in that article that you don't like? It all looked like good common sense to me.
I don't exactly remember the article, but he has just come out in favor of legalizing pot.
Not exactly my cup of tea...
In other words, a true politician.:laugh:
Unfortunately for all the disenfranchised & outa work in this country, that mode of operation isnt getting it done anymore.....exhibit A (BO) ....who I think we all agree stinks (excuse the pun/couldnt help myself)
One vague post deserves another, itself equally vague.
The great thing about Ron Paul is that he always articulates free market principles even if they doesn't suit his audience. He proclaims the merits of free market ideas even when they don't suit his audience. He dismisses dime store economics even if they suit his audience. He is never Keynesian even when it suits his audience. He always says what he thinks even when people don't want to hear it. He is a conservative of conviction, not convenience. He is a conservative pure and simple.
Or, if you, prefer:
FYI: research is harder than slander. And now you know.
Ron Paul is only a RINO (to get elected) but he actually is a Libertarian
Did you read your link? I read your link. Go ahead, click on your link. This is your link quoted in its entirety:
So, if finding something positive to say about the Libertarian Party counts as being a member of it, is he also a member of the Constitution Party and Green Party despite their radical differences? Eh, er, um, really?
Here's some of my links. FWIW, I read them.
Reason, libertarians' largest monthly, takes aim at Paul for his stance on cracking down on immigration and for wanting to end birthright citizenship via the Fourteenth Amendment.
This prolific libertarian blogger, Timothy Sandefur, considers Paul to be a threat to libertarianism by being, you'll laugh!, a libertarian in name only.
Also, here is an accurate account of Paul's libertarian critics, excerpted as follows:
Finally, I think you'd be hard pressed to read Paul out of the conservative movement for the very same reason you can't read Bill Buckley (favored pot legalization), Barry Goldwater (favored gay marriage, abortion), President George W. Bush (favored comprehensive immigration reform) Dick Cheney (ditto & called for banning high capacity ammunition clips for handguns after the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy), the majority of writers at The Wall Street Journal (who favor all of the above) and John Boehner/ Eric Cantor who voted for TARP. Attempting as much is likely to bring you up close and personal with the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
Insert "conservative" for "Scotsman" and your pet peeve with Paul for "haggis" and you get the idea.
For the record, my version goes:
Me: All Conservatives voted against the stimulus.
Typical Republican: Well, John Boehner and Eric Cantor voted for the stimulus and they're Conservatives.
Me: Well, all true Conservatives voted against the stimulus.
See how easy it is to expel just about anyone once you're a purist? It defeats the purpose of having political labels since at the very most they would only apply to one person. (You should know I don't actually deny that Boehner and Cantor are conservatives.)
Paul isn't even ALMOST a Libertarian. Libertarians tend to be consistent, for starters :smilewinkgrin:
Let's see, Bush II ran on a humble limited government, non interventionist foreign policy platform and won. The he showed us he was only a RINO to get elected. Turned out he was a true blue blooded neocon corporatist.
Obama ran on an anti war platform and won. Then he showed his true self. He turned out to be a neocon corporatist on steroids. Out Bushing Bush. Obama then is a DINO?
Seems to me that the republican party is only a RINO to gain power. Then they turn into what they really are. No different than what the democrats do.
Both are owned lock stock and barrel by the international banking cartel and the global corporations aka the "international community".
One thing Ron Paul is not . . . he is not a globalist. He believes in national sovereignty. You could say the same about anyone else in the running but of course but you'd only be fooling yourself.
Face it y'all. You just like the idea of dropping bombs on muslims to much to support a man that supports his country instead of a gaggle of criminal bankers and corporitos that profit from public debt and global death and destruction.
If you like the idea of perpetual debt and global warfare go vote for anyone but Paul. You'll get what you vote for.
I do? When did I say that. Boy, my memory must really be going.
I was speaking to the readers in a general sense. I know I'm not allowed to do that Salty. That's only reserved for those here who call me crazy for going with the evidence instead of the corporate mainstream consensus. Those who still believe all the government's lies in other words.
Okay, than who on this board "likes the idea of dropping bombs on muslims"