"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
I canNOT believe what I'm seeing. That's such horrible dishonesty. Surely the makers of that video are lying? There's no way that something like that could be true...
Could not Ron Paul sue for slander or something illegal like that?
It's so naive. He professes to be Jeffersonian, espouses Washingtonian foreign policy values, decries Carter and Obama realities that are the end result of every Republican president since Nixon (and Clinton, I might add), evokes Eisenhower (91% tax rates) and his distrust of the MIC, bables about the end of the gold standard, while never once addressing the reality that to do everything he proposes is to instantly decrease the standard of living for every single teenager in that crowd that treats him the same way they themselves shitcan anyone who supported Obama in'08; as unrealistic hopeydreamy idealists. He craps, constantly, on democrats and republicans, while never once seriously entertaining the idea of forming his own party; consuming the very same kind of unrealistic idealism his supporters poopoo when others support any and everyone else. He speaks of the founding fathers as though their words flow directly from him, while ignoring that Presidents like Adams (1) and Jefferson wrote constantly to one another about how their intentions would be corrupted, through misinterpretation OR stagnation via rhetoric for political gain, the same way Jesus' teaching were perverted by those who sought to increase their own influence and wealth at His expense. He speaks constantly of giving up taxes to support a government -flat or otherwise- and then, like every republican, decries any responsability for that government to give back to those from whom they collected those taxes. Every pedal pusher in the audience clapped and hoped and drooled over 10% taxes, free and clear, but then also salivated when they heard pavlov's bell of "not depending on the government for anything" mentioned.
What drivel, to assume that the economics of the founding father's is at all realistic in this day and age of global trade agreements, peak oil production having passed and interconnected standards of living.
His supporters should be on their knees in front of Jimmy Carter, not calling him Obama v1.0
Last edited by skekUng on Feb 18th, 2011 at 06:10 AM
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Now get him in office and see how he does nothing spetacular, I for one don't think Presidential hopefuls should resort to catchy gimmicks, "Revolution", about as useful as the "Hope and Change" we got with Obama.
I am for giving him four years though, even if he is an old, old fart.
I didn't intend to be a killjoy, but nothing I said isn't 100% true. The huge difference between Mr. Paul's position and then-candidate Obama is that Mr. Paul ignores the reality that sacrifice is going to be necessary in order to sustain even a semblence of our current lifestyle. When President Carter pointed that out to the nation, members of the party Mr. Paul refuses to leave decided to spend the next three decades promoting the idea that 'Muricans don't have to give up anything, and then replaced him with a Campbell's Soup spokesman that gutted the regulations that protected the very people Paul now wants to jump to their feet and revolt. The vague similarity is that President Obama is actually making budget cuts (not all of them the most intelligent, but cuts none-the-less) and Mr. Paul would rather just scrap the entire federal government. Supporters of Paul and the Republicans ignore how much that government does for them, and the blinding reality that the existence of any government since the industrial revolution hasn't just been about getting together and agreeing to make murder illegal and pave a few roads; it's been about promoting the progress of technology and luxury. That's why the government has been sold to private business. The dialing back of political -and, by extension social- progress that would accompany his style of governing is so fundamentally impossible at this point, that not one person who supports his ideology -not just his rhetoric- is willing to understand that means a total shift in the way they enjoy their own standard of living. It's always nice to scream "**** the Government!" so loudly that you can't hear that little voice in the back of your own head whispering "...but, We The People ARE the ****ing government.", but it's naive.
Last edited by skekUng on Feb 18th, 2011 at 05:40 PM
I'm not a dump-on-Obama at every chance type, but let's face it, "hope and change" is falling short, sure he took office over a country that was/is waged in a costly and nigh-endless war, massive deficit and other nonsense, still, he's not delivering all that much and his recent breaking of a major campaign promise (tax cuts) is just pure fail and a dick-slap across the face to those who voted for him.
I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that it makes no sense to compare empty promises and then begrudgingly cast your support for the even more profoundly unrealistic of the two.
Oh, the "give him a shot". I'll tell you why, even though I don't think Paul would be able to implement a small portion of his ideas (said this long before the 2008 election) because as you noted, they're not applicable in real world practice and that some of his stances would be outright lunacy (eg turning our back on 60+ years of foreign policy), I'm still willing to give people a shot, the man's obviously popular, let him get in office and do basically nothing of what's he's promised; turn out to be a lame duck and a stale four years. That will shut the Paulitions up and we can move on to the next "revolutionary" would-be hero/savior.
Best case scenario, he proves to be some political messiah and America is better for it. I wouldn't bet a $1.00 on this, but you never know.
I simply don't see any point in wasting four years of our country, especially in this very critical time, on someone you already know isn't just selling bullshit, but unrealistic bullshit.
right i'm not a libertarian i just liked his speech.. there's plenty of shit i disagree with him about, but i think he seems more honest and principled than these other assholes we've got to deal with, granted that's not saying much.
i'm pretty confident that if he did take office all of his 'revolutionary' ideas would translate to a more gradual breaking down of what he considers the more excessive functions of a wasteful government. partially for the very reason you listed, the massive effect it would have on the american lifestyle. we see how slowly obama's 'change' is taking to have the desired effect, i dont see why we would expect anything different under ron paul. he's been on congress for a while now, to assume he doesn't understand that idealistic rhetoric will get him in office but once he gets there must be 'sacrificed' for a more pragmatic approach seems unfounded. i would think as a career politician he knows this all too well.
but more than i'd support ron paul or any one candidate i support the idea that the two party system we have in place is going nowhere and that it's about time to shake things up a bit. and yes i'm well aware that he's not going to win, and seemingly refuses to run as an independent. ralph nader's not going to win either but i like some of his speeches too.
__________________
Last edited by red g jacks on Feb 18th, 2011 at 07:10 PM
Correct, they all spew shit to get into office, some more than others. But wouldn't it be nice just once to have a presidential hopeful say "*this* is what I'd like to do; *this* is what I'll likely be able to do, which won't be a whole lot of what I like. But vote for me if you agree." Instead of the song-n-dance show with the catchy key phrase.
what a strange statement about democracy it is when you can say you would rather vote for the person who admits that the democratic process wont lead you to the change or type of nation you want...
i see it more as they'd have to be up front about the fact that these policies would have to be severely watered down by the time they were able to pass any actual legislation. which of course would be a terrible campaign platform... so yea i see your point
KMC Community Forums
Feb 18th, 2011 01:36 AM
