Why provide a retort to Paulites who have no logical defense but sarcasm? Seems to be the Paulites M.O. Lots of folks do that when they are backed into a corner and opt not to deal with their position. The way in which Paulites respond and blindly attack any criticism of Paul speaks for itself quite nicely, thanks.
Prattle, of course. You complain specifically about actions which benefit you immensely and are the means by which you make your living. When your rank hypocrisy is pointed out to you, you evade and obfuscate as per the Troll Modus Operandi. Sad that you are still at your usual level of hypocrisy and pathetic dodging and weaving. Keep going to the AA meetings. Perhaps one day you'll find sobriety, and through that, some level of intellectual honesty. p.s. Happy New Year. Why not make it your resolution to not be a total dick for an entire day? Yes, most resolutions fail, but miracles do happen.
I see you are continuing with the logical fallacy sequence. If I were a hypocrite, that would have no bearing on the truth or falsity of what I am saying, as I am not basing the truth or falsity on the foundation of my own personality. I am not saying "trust me, believe in me" like Paul and the other politicians are saying. Maybe someday you can evolve beyond such simplistic illogical thinking and argue principles above personality. Or perhaps if I am running for president on the basis of a "lack of hypocrisy" you would have some value in saying "He is running on non hypocrisy, but he is a hypocrite...therefore don't vote for him. He is a liar." Since that is not happening, I have no conclusion but to put you in the same playpen with the others who are not able to deal with the concepts presented...
Not really blindly attacking your criticism of Paul, although that seems to be all that you are about. More that you just seem to be a sideline bomb thrower that won't consider that the main focus of his campaign is to break the centralization of power in Washington D.C. and get us out of the many quagmires we find ourselves in around the world and domestically. Sure he should have been more aggressive in monitoring statements made under his banner. He is a public figure and those sorts of statements that he denies agreement with now should have been addressed vigorously then. It astounds me that anyone, especially someone in his profession, could seek to outlaw abortion which would only drive it underground into the horrors of yesteryear. There has always been, and will always be a demand for abortion. Personally I think the question should be reframed from "Should abortion on demand be legal?" to a more sane approach that asks "What can be done to reduce the demand for abortion?". As far as Paul being driven by his religious convictions and trying to impose them on the rest of us, not much credibility there. Most politicians profess some conviction of faith, especially if it is in front of the right crowd and it might get some votes. I doubt any really think they could get away with much there or Roe v. Wade would be gone already. So what if he is a creationist (and I don't know that he is but nonetheless), faith supercedes critical thinking by definition. Lots of Americans follow their faith without seeking to impose it on others. Faith in one area does not imply the total lack of logic in others. I was disappointed in Paul's performance with Tim Russert recently when he was unable to put hard numbers on the impact of eliminating the IRS and the other major changes in government spending. He had to know that type of question was coming and was unprepared for them. This is what the campaign season is for. No doubt he will be able to cite that type of thing in the future. You are quick to point out your perceptions of Paul's flaws and decry the Paulites for their support of him. Yet you deny credence to any of his positions and wonder why sarcasm is the response to your vitriol. Is it possible that the easy money system that government operates under could be a major source of our problems? One where the Fed dutifully produces money to fund spending (it seems the Fed has never met a deficit it did not like) or the Treasury borrows endlessly? Could it be that the actual debt, not just budget deficits politicians use could be so great that we have gone past the point of no return? Is it possible that we are in a proto-fascism where soon the government will have to deprive us of our liberties in the name of protecting us? Would it make more sense to station the National Guard along the Rio Grande rather than the Euphrates? Do we really need to be mucking about in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations? No doubt about it, Paul has a few warts. But he is at least asking the important questions that will determine whether this country survives or goes the way of other empires of the past. None of his peers go past lip service. You are right when you say that the people are responsible for the mess we are in. We have allowed ourselves to be duped and cajoled though our laziness and stupidity. There is one person who has the guts to stand up and ask questions that shake the status quo. All the others are just more of the same. Just vote whether you want to tax and spend, or would it be better to borrow and spend. It really makes no difference, the end result is the same.
Look, have you ever known a person who was very smart, knew all of trading theory, worked at a trading firm in the compliance area or worked for the SEC generating the "laws" of trading, understood everything about trading, except that he had never traded personally or assembled and lead a team of other traders. You trusted his intentions implicitly as he was beyond reproach ethically. You would want to appoint him to the head trader position? Or would you understand that not ever having traded might make him incompetent to be the head trader? Paul has zero experience in the executive branch of government or assembling a cabinet. He can't work with other members of congress all that well, Joe Scarborough who served with him in the house says that most of the other congressmen/women at that time thought he was a kook. I think the guy is incompetent to be president, and I don't particularly trust incompetent people even if I think they mean well. I don't agree with many of his principles, and I find the way he has handled some situations disconcerting. There are many candidates that people like on some level, but they disagree with the candidate on another level. Some things are deal breakers, Paul has too many negatives to ever make him a viable candidate. I don't believe we need another right wing appointment to the Supreme Court, it is already loaded to the right. I don't think Paul is competent or understands what it takes to be president. I don't think he pays attention to detail. He is ivory tower in many ways, and that's now what we need right now. Paulites can't generally handle the reality of this. Paulites spend too much time focusing on Paul as the savior, which is lubricious, but that's what gives the Paul movement the feel of a cult of personality. I agreed with Nader on lots of stuff, but would never vote for him as president. I would vote for Kucinich over Paul if it were the two of them, but I don't support Kucinich and he has no chance either. It ain't gong to be either one of those guys, and a decision is going to have to be made, and whining about the media, or the government, or any of the other diversions I have seen from the Paulites is impractical. They are defiant and petulant to a great extent, which is their right but clouds sound judgment. We have not seen a more divided country since the Civil war, and Paul is not the solution to that problem, he would only exacerbate the problems with his own rigid fundamentalist brand of thinking. Easy money is the symptom, not the cause of the problem. Paul blames government and the FED, the blame goes to the people who live beyond their means, but that doesn't get you elected. Paul blames the government as the cause of the problem, but he wants to run the government? He doesn't blame the people who are really at fault, because blaming the people doesn't win you any friends. Just like being a critic doesn't generally garner endearment by the masses, this critic isn't running for any office so I don't really care how foolish the Paulites often are, I just like to expose it... People have the power, that's how they abdicated it. They have to take it back, and rallying around Paul and his hatred of government isn't taking back their own power or actually encouraging people to take back their own. I can sum up the thinking of many of the Paulites: "You mean Paul will cut my taxes and let me get high legally? Count me in..."
yeah... ZZZZzzzz just wants a criminal in the white house plain and simple. how fkn sad is that? there is no one more qualified to lead this country right now than ron paul. he has studied monetary policy for over 30 yrs. everything he warned about has come true. yet... stupid people like zzzzz find reasons to dog him because his ego wont allow him to admit he was wrong. so the answer is to vote obama? or hillary? my god man.. this is bizarre.... they have no experience in an executive job.
You are welcome to your views. I don't share your objections and agree philosophically with Paul. I leave it to others to form there own conclusions.
You are welcome to your views. I don't share your position of agreement philosophically with Paul. I leave it to others to form there own conclusions.