In case you haven’t noticed…Paul is the only one being talked about “on the internet” for a reason.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In case you haven’t noticed…Paul is the only one being talked about “on the internet” for a reason.[/quote]
None of his fans want to show their face?
[quote]tedro wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In case you haven’t noticed…Paul is the only one being talked about “on the internet” for a reason.
None of his fans want to show their face?[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In case you haven’t noticed…Paul is the only one being talked about “on the internet” for a reason.
None of his fans want to show their face?
[/quote]
It looks like the backs of peoples heads.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It looks like the backs of peoples heads.[/quote]
.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tedro wrote:
…and it happened.
I knew it would, but I thought we could at least get through two pages first.
Yup, it sucks. I should know never to argue with a Paulie.[/quote]
Zap,
The best way to infuriate one of these moRon’s is to ignore them.
I admit that I have done a poor job giving them the attention they deserve.
I’ll try if you will.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
…ignore them…I’ll try if you will.
[/quote]
please do.
Good take on McCain’s use of history, although he’s my (distant) second choice after Ron Paul:
http://larison.org/2007/11/28/isolationism/
"In tonight�??s debate McCain lambasted Ron Paul for �??isolationism�?? of the kind that �??led to caused WWII.�?? Since the topic in question was the war in Iraq, James notes that this was an absurd comparison. But leave aside how far-fetched the comparison was. Just consider the thinking behind this.
Interventionists routinely complain that their opponents �??blame America first,�?? but there is no more obvious attempt to blame America for something for which our country was not responsible than the outrageous lie that our �??failure�?? to ratify the Treaty of Versailles or our �??failure�?? to join the League of Nations�??the usual charges against American �??isolationism�??�??led to caused WWII. If this were a true charge, that would be one thing, but it isn�??t even accurate.
Let�??s be very clear about this: WWII in Europe came out of revanchism stoked by resentments over the post-WWI settlements and in both Europe and Asia resulted from the territorial revisionism of second-tier powers as they tried to become great powers. The way that WWI ended and the way the effectively losing side was treated had a significant impact on interwar political developments inside Germany that had nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy during the 1920s and 1930s.
To the extent that America was involved with German affairs during this period, we were attempting to lighten the burden of the reparations and ameliorate the radicalising effects of the Treaty on German public opinion. Had America belonged to the League of Nations, it would not have made the League any more effective at deterring Japanese aggression in Asia, Italian aggression in Africa or German aggression in Europe.
Furthermore, it is a caricature and a distortion of interwar U.S. foreign policy to refer to it as �??isolationist.�?? Our government was regularly involved in diplomatic activity, international relief efforts and international renegotiations of the terms of reparations under Versailles. The Dawes Plan was not the product of an �??isolationist�?? government, whatever you might think of its merits.
The Kellogg-Briand Treaty that �??outlawed war�?? was quite stupid and pointless, but it was not the product of �??isolationism.�?? When hawks such as McCain complain about �??isolationism,�?? they are complaining about a refusal to send Americans to fight and die in wars that usually have nothing to do with the United States. By that standard, then, America was �??isolationist�?? in this period, and we should be proud of it.
But by any honest assessment of U.S. foreign policy during this era, �??isolationism�?? is a complete misnomer for what happened under the Harding, Coolidge and even Hoover administrations.
I see that McCain also said something else to Ron Paul, which I must have missed at the time: �??We allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude and appeasement.�?? Of course, �??we�?? did not �??allow�?? Hitler to come to power, since Hitler came to power by being appointed Chancellor following elections in which his party won a plurality.
The attitudes and views of foreigners were utterly immaterial to Hitler�??s rise to power. Practically everything McCain said was just plain wrong."
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
tedro wrote:
…and it happened.
I knew it would, but I thought we could at least get through two pages first.
Yup, it sucks. I should know never to argue with a Paulie.
Zap,
The best way to infuriate one of these moRon’s is to ignore them.
I admit that I have done a poor job giving them the attention they deserve.
I’ll try if you will.
JeffR
[/quote]
Considering that the top 5 candidates are polling higher than Clinton, why do you insist on pulling for Guiliani? I trust you’re aware that you look just as ridiculous in ignoring his domestic fallacies as the Paul fanatics do in endorsing his misguided foreign policy. I mean, if you have to do the lesser of two evils, why not go with a McCain or Thompson?
mike
This quote pretty well sums up what I think of Paul too:
http://instapundit.com/archives2/012290.php
[i]RON PAUL: He’s just terrible, even when – which is often, once he’s off the subject of the war – I agree with him. His voice is too high, he can’t remember who the Kurds are, and he often comes off like a crazy old man in a bus station.
But that’s good news, in a way. Paul’s doing better than anyone expected. It’s abundantly clear that he’s not doing it on charisma and rhetorical skill. Which means that libertarian ideas are actually appealing, since Ron Paul isn’t. Paul’s flaws as a vessel for those ideas prove the ideas’ appeal. If they sell with him as the pitchman, they must be really resonating. I suspect Paul himself would agree with this analysis. Er, except maybe the bus station part.[/i]
Though I feel the need to add the gold standard to my specific areas if disagreement. Hopefully more libertarian principles will catch on in the GOP.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
tedro wrote:
…and it happened.
I knew it would, but I thought we could at least get through two pages first.
Yup, it sucks. I should know never to argue with a Paulie.
Zap,
The best way to infuriate one of these moRon’s is to ignore them.
I admit that I have done a poor job giving them the attention they deserve.
I’ll try if you will.
JeffR
Considering that the top 5 candidates are polling higher than Clinton, why do you insist on pulling for Guiliani? I trust you’re aware that you look just as ridiculous in ignoring his domestic fallacies as the Paul fanatics do in endorsing his misguided foreign policy. I mean, if you have to do the lesser of two evils, why not go with a McCain or Thompson?
mike
[/quote]
Mike,
That was a low blow comparing me to moRons.
Beyond the pale, pal.
Now, you mentioned “domestic fallacies.”
First of all, I am the Republican who said during the clinton years, “I don’t care about his personal life.”
I still don’t care about someone’s personal life, UNLESS they broke laws.
Period.
What makes it worse, is these “fallacies” you seem to keep bringing up, just aren’t that important.
Dressing in drag, marrying 74 times, lisping, etc.
What do we have this week? Allegations about using taxpayer money to have affairs.
First of all, NO dEMOCRAT CAN EVER complain about this. See bill clinton using troopers, secret service agents, etc… for his affairs.
Second, it sounds like another NOTHING allegation.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/eveningnews/main3556470.shtml
In summary, I don’t care if a guy likes seafood, shops in Macy’s, has a favorite color named Magenta.
I care about what he is going to do to lixy’s friends. I care about border security. I care about crime.
Why not Thompson? He seems like a good guy. Quick witted. About 10 years too late. He doesn’t think he’s going to win. I doubt he’d be aggressive enough against the clinton machine.
McCain? I could never warm up to him. I’ve tried for 8 years. I don’t trust his credentials. He’s too much of a Senator. Too cozy with the far left for my tastes.
JeffR
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Though I feel the need to add the gold standard to my specific areas if disagreement. Hopefully more libertarian principles will catch on in the GOP.[/quote]
Exactly how I view Ron Paul’s participation. Who knows, maybe he, and others in the future, will have such an effect on the republican party. As it is now, I fall somewhere between libertarian and republican. A great deal closer to libertarian, however.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
cnn + clinton = more planted questions.
JeffR[/quote]
Good, there should be more planted questions from the opposition party. If someone can’t handle a question raised by someone on the other side, might as well expose that in primary season so we don’t have to wait until the General Election debates to see that come to light.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Though I feel the need to add the gold standard to my specific areas if disagreement. Hopefully more libertarian principles will catch on in the GOP.[/quote]
On Kudlow & Company, Paul talked about not necessarily making the national currency go back to the gold standard, but legalize a new, competitive currency, such as a currency backed by gold or silver.
[quote][i]RON PAUL: He’s just terrible, even when – which is often, once he’s off the subject of the war – I agree with him. His voice is too high, he can’t remember who the Kurds are, and he often comes off like a crazy old man in a bus station.
But that’s good news, in a way. Paul’s doing better than anyone expected. It’s abundantly clear that he’s not doing it on charisma and rhetorical skill. Which means that libertarian ideas are actually appealing, since Ron Paul isn’t. Paul’s flaws as a vessel for those ideas prove the ideas’ appeal. If they sell with him as the pitchman, they must be really resonating. I suspect Paul himself would agree with this analysis. Er, except maybe the bus station part.[/i]
[/quote]
His supporters are beginning to realize that his personality and speech habits are his biggest drawback as well. Many of the Ron Paul videos on youtube (made by users, not the paul campaign) now have scenes where they simply quote what he said in text instead of showing clips of him saying it, and when they do show him speak it is usually only when he is talking more slowly & calmly now. I think it works a lot better, the ideas are easier to pay attention to when laid out in front of you, instead of barked at you by the squeaky old guy (which I think is causing a lot of dismissal of Paul, more so than the actual positions).
[quote]Magnate wrote:
JeffR wrote:
cnn + clinton = more planted questions.
JeffR
Good, there should be more planted questions from the opposition party. If someone can’t handle a question raised by someone on the other side, might as well expose that in primary season so we don’t have to wait until the General Election debates to see that come to light.
[/quote]
That’s why it is so funny. The republicans handled it without any problems and now it just makes Hillary Clinton look even worse because she has to have her very own pre-rehearsed planted questions. Otherwise somebody may ask her some crazy question about I don’t know, drivers licenses or something.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Magnate wrote:
JeffR wrote:
cnn + clinton = more planted questions.
JeffR
Good, there should be more planted questions from the opposition party. If someone can’t handle a question raised by someone on the other side, might as well expose that in primary season so we don’t have to wait until the General Election debates to see that come to light.
That’s why it is so funny. The republicans handled it without any problems and now it just makes Hillary Clinton look even worse because she has to have her very own pre-rehearsed planted questions. Otherwise somebody may ask her some crazy question about I don’t know, drivers licenses or something.
[/quote]
They handled the question fine, which is why the outrage from some pundits amuses me. Get the fuck over it, heaven forbid you be asked a question that came from someone with a different voter’s registration card than your base!!! OH NO! THE SKY IS FALLING!!
Its fucking stupid, handle it well or fuck it up, either way the primary voters at least see where you stand on that specific question. To draw from Keith Olbermann’s show tonight regarding this story, “If you can’t handle the democrats, how are you going to handle Al Qaeda?”.
Good point, if being asked a question by someone from the other camp is this outrageous, how will you handle having to work with the other camp once elected? I fully expect a potential president to have no issue with responding to a dissenter of their policy, why this was so outrageous is beyond me.