I never did “get” the Ron Paul revolution thing. Not only was a “return to the gold standard” an economic suicide pill, but there were lots of icky people standing in line to endorse his candidacy. But it was also clear that there was a lot of grass roots energy behind his long shot bid for the Republican nomination. I saw more sign carriers, blimps and bridge banners for his candidacy then for all the rest of them combined.
Now? Not so much.
That is an awesome picture!
Rats, I was hoping this was going to include the announcement that he was dropping out of the race.
Not a LOLcat, but a ROFLdog?
I always wonder who ARE those 10% that vote for Ron Paul? What, maybe ten million people would vote for him in a primary?
Well, I guess he HAS carved out a niche for himself.
I would never vote for Ron Paul.
But rather than resorting to ad hominen attacks upon him, I still listen with a keen ear as to what he says. And while I may agree with a little and disagree with many of his points, what he brings into the debate is important. It is even more important to listen when he is a sole voice in bringing up some vital issues, regardless of his position.
Regarding his comments on our abandoned gold standard, one would do well to research and try to understand what he is talking about. It is more important today than ever, and leaves us vulnerable as a country. Begin by researching the Brenton Woods agreement of 1944, and Dollar Hegemony. With globalization, nascent emerging economies, new and planned Mid-East bourses, one wonders why Paul is so alone on this issue.
Here’s more
Whenever I start reading a fliterman screed these days,I seem to transit to the Charlie Brown TV Universe in my head. You know, where the unimportant characters speak like: Blah Blah,Blaaahhh, Blah?
Anybody else similarly affected?
Not really, Unka. If it wasn’t for Fliterman (and Our Paul) playing the role of “The Worthy Opponent”, surely Lex would have to invent them.
Aside from the entertainment value of the jousts, I find his flitty ideas stimulating, and even educational on occasion.
Keep it up Filterman. I, for one, appreciate the dialogue.
actually unkawill, it’s more like “Waw waw waw waw Wah!” than anything else.
/just sayin’
For the real thing, go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7k04wIPDos&feature=related
The character of a person is irrelevant to the logic of their position, thus ad hominem is a logical fallacy. However the character of a person is somewhat important in deciding who will next give people like the Captain and myself our marching orders.
Ron Paul is either a racist weasel or he’s too incompetent to monitor what is being printed in his name. Those are the only two ways to interpret the evidence as it stands now, and either one is sufficient to make Dr Paul ineligible for President. Regardless of his stance on issues.
“Give me the facts, just the facts”, fliterman. Dirtyblueshirt did just that! Thanks.
Lex, how did you get Paul to pose for that pix? It’s a GREAT action shot!
I agree with fliter, to a degree. I too never felt compelled to back Paul in his bid for the presidency, but I can see why others would.
Granted, many of his devotees are behind him simply because of his virulent anti-war stance, and for me that is a total turn-off. There’s a lot of confusion, much of it deliberate, behind what GWB was trying to say about 9/11 WRT Iraq. Many (too many) to this very day contend that he was accusing Iraq of being involved to an actionable degree in the attacks of 9/11. I didn’t hear that at all in what he said. Fundamentally, what I took away was “isolationism cannot work, and is too dangerous to try. 9/11 shows that they can hurt us very badly if we don’t do something to address the bigger problems in that region.”
Paul is preaching a dangerous level of isolationism.
That said, being horribly wrong about that and being (apparently) a horrible racist doesn’t make him wrong about everything. I do believe that our federal government is too big and too invloved in our lives. On this topic, I view Paul as the anti-Nanny (insert ‘Clinton’ or ‘Bloomberg’ as presumptive Nannys), and I agree that we need a more libertarian leaning to offset the growth of the last few decades. Surely many (if not most) of his actual proposals are as ill-informed as his isolationist preachings, but I certainly do see how the overall tenet of a smaller, more constutionally compliant Federal government would be appealing.
I second what Paulg said. Flatlander, perhaps the 10% are the folks who like (small-l) libertarian principles even though the (big-L) Libertarian candidates always seem to draw attention to extreme, peripheral issues (Harry Browne’s pot legalization, Ron Paul’s gold standard, etc.). I think the criticism of Paul’s isolationism IS valid, and substantial, and probably the best reason to not vote for him. I really wish the (big-L) Libertarian Party could field a viable candidate.
Sorry, “Paulg” should be “Daveg” in previous.
He’s a nut. Best shaked out. Pure “L” message or not.
b2