Ron Paul For President
Fuck yeah. He has no shot whatsoever at winning but I would love to see him in a debate with the other nanny-state prick Republican contenders.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 12th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Ron Paul is two fries short of a Happy Meal. Let him debate the free toy that comes with it, he’ll never know the difference.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
. . . Republican contenders pretenders.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Uncle, your comments don’t like my html. It should have been: [strike]contenders[/strike].
January 12th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
X – if that is your real initial…
What in the name of John Moses Browning leads you to make such a late-80’s quip about the man? I don’t agree with him 100% & I’m sure most folks don’t think every thing out of his mouth is golden, but I’ve never heard anything that’d lead me to believe he’s less than competent in his thinking. So since you seem to be in a bad-cliche-from-the-80’s mode, where’s the beef?
January 12th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
More and more I feel like 2008 is going to be 1976 all over again. Bush is practically Nixon reincarnate, and it’s a good possibility the voters will punish the GOP for this by electing a Dem in ’08.
Maybe I’m just getting overly wishful, but could Ron Paul maybe be our new Reagan? The guy no one thinks has a serious chance, but who nearly proves a spoiler and as a result triggers a philosophical rebirth of the party.
January 12th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Slogan:
“Ron Paul — He’s not another fucking lawyer“
January 12th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
X, maybe he doesn’t have enough french fires, but he sure as Hell seems to be the only sonofabitch in either party that has ever read the constitution, let alone understands it.
January 13th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Like hell he does. As with most of his fellow looneytarians, his version of the Constitution is one that supports what he supports, and doesn’t support what he doesn’t support. It has nothing to do with what does or doesn’t appear in the … um … Constitution?
January 13th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Publicola, I did not realize the expression goes all the way back to the 1980s, but would be happy to substitute a more current phrase if it suits you. The beef with Paul is that he’s a knee-jerk nut with an annoying habit of mistaking his own obnoxious, poorly thought out opinions for some kind of “principle” or, worse, constitutional mandate. He differentiates himself from the hard left only on the detail of which obnoxious, knee-jerk, ill-thought-out positions to shove down everyone’s throat, not on whether or not it’s a good idea to do so.
His isolationist foreign policy, for example, is no more or less constitutional than any other foreign policy, but that doesn’t stop him from dressing up his idiotarian positions in pseudo-constitutionalist rhetoric rather than have to defend them on the merits. Even when the issue was a non-binding, purely symbolic resolution in support of the troops (or at least, in support of the overwhelming majority of them who served admirably and had nothing to do with Abu Ghraib), with no constitutional implications one way or the other, he couldn’t find the decency to vote for the symbolic measure along with every other Republican and every Democrat this side of Dennis Kucinich. Hell, even if he really believed his phony “constitutional” theories, he still could have friggin’ abstained rather than voting “no” and sending the symbolic message of either “no, I don’t support the troops” or “no, I don’t condemn the abuses at Abu Ghraib.” Instead, he chose to line himself up with the military-bashing far left, and given them some fig leaf of “bipartisanship” to boot. Phuck him. I’d rather see one more liberal Democrat in Congress than allow that guy go continue making both small-l libertarians and big-R Republicans look bad.
January 13th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
X,
no no no – use it all you wish. easier for me to get my attempted snark on that way. 🙂
You & I have differing views on the constitution. We’ve argued in the past over those differences. That does not mean I hate you or ascribe your views as signs of nuttery. Neither do I ascribe self interested motives to your defense of your constitutional interpretation. I just know you to be wrong in some instances. 🙂
Paul is not someone I agree with 100% but I do not take the view you do of his motives or his actions. His vote on the symbolic measure – personally i would have abstained. But then again I can see where a strategy of always voting “no” on symbolic measures sends the message that it’s a waste of time & taxpayer cash. Or perhaps he thought that congress who has the power to materially support the troops was bullshitting around with this symbolic stuff. have you ever delved into his voting record to see what material measures that would actually – ya know – support the troops he’s voted for or against? That’d be a better basis for contending you’d rather see a liberal Dem in office than getting pissy about a vote on something that actually does nothing. aren’t you the one who has been known to chide people for picking the wrong hill to die on? 🙂
The basics are this: Paul is solid on guns – more solid than anyone else in D.C. (with the exception perhaps of Countertop & Bitter – but since they don’t hold office this is obviously just sucking up to them…). His ideas about economics make much more sense than most I’v eheard eminating from the capital. He makes Boltin seem like a UN lover & in general he puts the Big R’s to shame when any talk of actually limiting government rolls around. He’s an isolationist & honestly that’s not a position I’m unsympathetic with but I’ll grant that a lot of folks lean away fromt hat view.
He’s not perfect by any means but I think you’re mistaken about a great many things by dogging him out in such a way & saying a liberal dem would be preferable to him. On economics, guns, smaller government & foreign policy name a dem or repub who is more solid constitutionally than Paul. I would ask that you tell me why you’d prefer giuliani or McCain or Romney to Paul as a presidential candidate (since those seem like th ehcoices we have) but I can’t think you’d seriously choose any one of those (at best) marginally kinda in an abstract way pro gun contenders over the guy who wants to repeal the GCA (among others).
January 14th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
That pretty much describes everyone in the country. X..you need to get off your high-horse that your interpretation of the constitution is the only one that holds water. Having said that, Paul is pretty consistent with voting with his principals from everything I’ve seen.
As to the non-binding resolutions..If you take the stand that non-binding resolutions are a waste of time and should be voted against, then thats what you have to do. When you start making even one exception to vote for this one or that one, then you no longer hold the position that non-binding resolutions are a waste of time and money, because suddenly you are another politician taking sides with non-binding resolutions.
January 14th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Publicola, I agree Paul is a good guy on guns, but aside from being a reliable vote on the issue, I don’t know that he’s terribly effective in persuading other Congressmen to protect gun rights – or, for that matter, in persuading other Congressmen to do (or not do) anything at all. He strikes me as someone living in his own world, which is a perfectly fine thing for a blogger to do, but a not so great thing for a Congressman and the kiss of death for a would-be President. As to agreeing/disagreeing on constitutional matters, I do not question the intellectual honesty of everyone who disagrees with me. I do, however, question the intellectual honesty of anyone whose views of the Constitution “just happen” to agree with that person’s political preferences on issues where the written Constitution has little or nothing to say. It just seems a bit too …. convenient.
Manish, it may be true that you interpret the Constitution to support everything you support politically and not support everything you don’t support politically, but please do not insult everyone in the country by pretending that we all operate that way. I for one think drug laws, gun registration laws, background checks for private sales, the 55 mile per hour speed limit, progressive income tax, government school semi-monopolies, and too many other laws to count are horrible ideas, but constitutional. I also think that a law requiring at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen as a condition of natural born citizenship, here or abroad, is a great idea in principle, but one that flies in the face of a commonsense reading of the 14th Amendment. Etc., etc. I submit that anyone who can’t think of more than a couple of ideas they think are good but unconstitutional, or really, really bad but constitutional, is not being intellectually honest.