CNN 12-18-07

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pz6AKU5lSqc

If you get him the nomination, I will vote for him.

Meh. I don't know.

He's for non intervention, which is cool, but he's holding back about Israel a lot.

Don't get me wrong thought. This guy is probably my favorite candidate after Gravel.

I like Ron Paul, he's a true Texan.

Meh. I don't know.

He's for non intervention, which is cool, but he's holding back about Israel a lot.

Don't get me wrong thought. This guy is probably my favorite candidate after Gravel.

he's holiding back on israel because a large amount of his financial support is coming from neo-nazi,anti-semitic groups and 9/11 troofers. he needs their support and doesn't want to risk turning the nut jobs against him.

I like Ron Paul, he's a true Texan.

Is it just me who doesn't find that terribly reassuring? What does it mean anyway? He eats a lot of pork, chews tobacco, drives a pick-up truck and has a long white hood in the back of the wardrobe?

he's holiding back on israel because a large amount of his financial support is coming from neo-nazi,anti-semitic groups and 9/11 troofers. he needs their support and doesn't want to risk turning the nut jobs against him.

He's holding back on Israel because he can't give the zionazi overlords of the media any ammunition to shoot him down if wants any chance of winning.

He's holding back on Israel because he can't give the zionazi overlords of the media any ammunition to shoot him down if wants any chance of winning.

zionist overlords. that's rich!

23-12-07 05:34 PM Red rep from Mr Jack with the message

"you forgot the out of wedlock sex which you seem to need a little of lately"

Thanks Jack. Let me add "great sense of humour about themselves" to that Texas stereotype too. :p


Anyway, who is this dude and is anybody taking him seriously? (Not Cracker-Jack, the one in the video)...

Is it just me who doesn't find that terribly reassuring? What does it mean anyway? He eats a lot of pork, chews tobacco, drives a pick-up truck and has a long white hood in the back of the wardrobe?

Well that is what you think it means.

So I want you to really think about this now. Does your belief in those stereotypes actually make you a more open minded person than what you described?

Ron Paul is a very interesting candidate, he stands apart from all the other republicans running. From what I've heard and seen of him he has very strong libertarian beliefs; lots of individual freedom, free markets and a strong capitalist system. I like certain aspects of his take on foreign policy but I hesitate to advocate him because of those libertarian parts of his campaign; during the Republican Debate on CNN he mentioned that a socialized health care system wasn't needed - he sees health care for all being achieved through the markets and other aspects of the liberalism ideology.. I don't understand the details and schematics of that or how it would work and I lean more toward socialism I guess. I still like him better than Clinton (and most of the other republicans running) though lol.

J4T, it was a joke. And apart from the hood, I don't really care even if the stereotype is true! My point was...what is a "real Texan" to you?

J4T, it was a joke. And apart from the hood, I don't really care even if the stereotype is true! My point was...what is a "real Texan" to you?

I just meant he is straight up and is not bowing to politically correct BS. Not the most refined person, but self made. And he does not worry if he belongs but is not pretentious.

Like his views on marijuana, he tells it straight.

And on Israel:

Paul said he wants to eliminate foreign aid to Israel and other nations. "Why make Israel so dependent?" he asked. "They can't defend their borders without coming to us."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22379734/

OK, understood now thank you. Sorry if you're a Texan by the way, and hope you weren't as touchy as Cactus J. Where is he anyway?! Come back buddy!

On the Israel thing, I watched it through and what he actually said was withdraw aid from everybody and let them get on with it, let the Israelis defend themselves with their nukes if necessary and then the others will have to negotiate with them. Hmm. It's certainly "blue sky thinking"; I respect that even if I don't agree with the outcome!

But to be honest, both of these guys are pretty unpleasant in their outlook. OK, sure, every politician should stand with the needs of their own people foremost in mind, but I just have a problem in general with right-wingers who extend that to imply that they are the only people whose peaceful existence and prosperity matters. Texan or not, if you believe in a higher purpose to life, then I would say you should also accept that unrivalled wealth and power comes with a responsibility to care. Noblesse oblige, as the "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys" might say...

To me, both the interviewer and "Dr Paul" are two sides of the same chauvinistic and arrogant right wing coin: The interventionist bigot versus the isolationist bigot. What a choice. If I were American I'd even choose that mixed up prevaricator Barak Obama over this guy. And not just to piss off all o'them red-neck crackers :D

But to be honest, both of these guys are pretty unpleasant in their outlook. OK, sure, every politician should stand with the needs of their own people foremost in mind, but I just have a problem in general with right-wingers who extend that to imply that they are the only people whose peaceful existence and prosperity matters. Texan or not, if you believe in a higher purpose to life, then I would say you should also accept that unrivalled wealth and power comes with a responsibility to care. Noblesse oblige, as the "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys" might say...


Oh no, the US has been down that road before and always ends up being villified and blamed for the problem when it tries to intervene or even when it does not intervene.

People around the world suck like that.

And at the end of the day, people are responsible for themselves.

America should practice isolationism.

Let the EU deal with it. Or better yet Russia and China, lol.

Interventionism isn't always helpful. But you've a fair point; well-intentioned help isn't always well-received.

The EU is a massive aid donor, so is Japan. Russia and China have a way to go.

http://i25.tinypic.com/29qfx2h.jpg

That's about the best Paul is going to do. He's a terrible, uninspiring candidate with a message that appeals to libertarians and a few paleos and nobody else.

And these are CAUCUSES...much more easily manipulated by small groups of passionate supporters than primaries.

And Nevada is weird anyway...

He's pro-life! I'll grant him that! And as I say: You get him the nomination and I will vote for him.

Ron got more donations than any other candidate and broke the republican fundraising record, how's that for uninspiring. If libertarianism and constitutionalism don't "appeal" to you then what does that say about you? Well it says you're not a conservative for one thing, coz that's what conservatives conserve.

Ron got more donations than any other candidate and broke the republican fundraising record, how's that for uninspiring. If libertarianism and constitutionalism don't "appeal" to you then what does that say about you? Well it says you're not a conservative for one thing, coz that's what conservatives conserve.

I wouldn't object on PRINCIPLE if you decided to cut the snark and have an actual, serious conversation! :p

Although that seems to be against some Internet Law or something.

Constitutionalism appeals to me very much. That's why I am for hewing to the original language of the text, rather than enforcing my political and social views on it in order to reach a "just" objective that democratic processes won't give me.

Part of traditional Conservatism in the United States (not Europe) is a healthy respect for the virtues of the free market and an abhorrence of government interference in economic life.

But dogmatic Libertarians generally reject with contempt the idea that they are Conservatives. They may form a temporary alliance with us, but if you read what they write, they usually make a big point that they agree with neither and both Liberals and Conservatives on various issues, neither of which parties, according to them are consistent.

Paul is a dogmatic libertarian. And he is uncharismatic. And he doesn't seem to want the nomination much or take himself very seriously as a candidate.

There is something admirable about all those things, especially the last. But it makes him UNINSPIRING to most people and UNAPPEALING except to a small group of intellectuals. I'm sorry, but dogmatic Libertarianism just doesn't have a broad hold on people, outside of certain intellectual circles.

That's why Paul's undoubted ability to raise a surprising amount of money from a small group of passionate backers doesn't translate into political power in the ballot box.

Don't get me wrong: I said he is a terrible CANDIDATE. I find him admirable in some ways as a man and even as a politician. But if he ever got the nomination, the Dems would tear him to SHREDS and he would get a smaller proportion of the electorate than McGovern.

But as I said: Get him the nomination and I will vote for him. Today, I'm for McCain. We'll see about tomorrow....

That post was not snarky, it was a straightforward statement of two facts.

The word conservative has been hijacked by statists, just as the word liberal, which originally meant libertarian, was hijacked by statists, hence many modern libertarians try to distance themselves from the name. Others like Ron try to take the name back.

And what has he ever done to even remotely suggest that "he doesn't seem to want the nomination"? Nothing at all, he has campaigned to the best of his ability.

dogmatic Libertarianism just doesn't have a broad hold on people, outside of certain intellectual circles.


You are absolutely right about that. Not that these people are all intellectuals but if you check facebook stats (dominated largely by college students), the congressman tops the republican voters pick. Unfortunately, he does only attract a certain amount of people - passionate though they might be.

I understand why some would say he doesn't seem to take his candidacy seriously; he doesn't appear to or he doesn't have the means to.

I think the media monopolizes certain aspects of all the campaigns in race - Clinton and Obama are all over every news channel, partly because of trading attacks, partly because one is woman and another a black man, and partly because, quite simply this is what the American media wants us to see. Candidates like Thomson and Kucinich (and Gravel and others before they dropped out) are completely ignored. If the media isn't fair about the information it gives to this public, the public doesn't have the fair means that democracy should provide for them to vote. Paul also falls victim to this. Also, he is very far to the right (sometimes so much he could be a lefty :) ) which makes him less appealing to most people who fall somewhere in the middle of the continuum. I like Paul quite a bit and really wish that candidates like him had stronger campaigns and smoother ways to the top - unfortunately that's not likely to happen anytime soon.