Ron Paul

[Buff_bills4ever]

Can someone explain to me why every conspiracy theorist loves this guy? Seriously? I don't know much about him but it's like every hack wannabe revolutionary with an internet connection is absolutely enamored with him.

 

 

What's the catch? Explain to me what I'm missing please.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Buff_bills4ever

[Pete]

Ron Paul is the man. Listen to him debate- he kicks ass everytime

[DC Tom]

Can someone explain to me why every conspiracy theorist loves this guy? Seriously? I don't know much about him but it's like every hack wannabe revolutionary with an internet connection is absolutely enamored with him.

 

 

What's the catch? Explain to me what I'm missing please.

 

He appeals to simpletons.

[OCinBuffalo]

Can someone explain to me why every conspiracy theorist loves this guy? Seriously? I don't know much about him but it's like every hack wannabe revolutionary with an internet connection is absolutely enamored with him.

 

 

What's the catch? Explain to me what I'm missing please.

Easy:

 

He attracts people who have a hard time dealing with the fact that their perceptions and reality rarely meet...the right's version of the scarf-wearing grad student. You take that and the fact that Ron Paul is the perfect internet anti-hero...I mean come on, look at him, you have all these newfags who hate/d their high school history teacher...rooting for a guy that looks like their high school history teacher, but saying things that their teacher wouldn't dream of saying, because...he actually teaches history.

 

That, and Ron Paul embodies "I don't understand it, so let's destroy it!", for the internet hacks especially. I am certain Ron Paul understands why we aren't on the Gold Standard, and why being the reserve currency is the optimal position for the US dollar, but, if he starts talking about destroying the Fed, his click-rate goes through the roof. I am just as certain that 50% of Ron Paul supporters have no idea what the F I just wrote in my last sentence. The positive thing about Paulites...is that 50% of them do, which is a hell of a lot better than the far-left's 5%.

 

Ron Paul is what remains of the exclusive little club of libertarianism from the 90s...where being a little nuts was sorta required, as it was the only way to get attention. Now, as libertarian thought is becoming more and more main stream, and is the entire premise for the TEA party(don't see a lot of religious talk at a TEA party rally, do you?), it's going to be time for Paul to get his gold watch and a nice card.

 

IMHO, Paul does not represent rational libertarian thought on many issues, i.e., Paul's notion that the free market solves national security issues. Ron: it's awfully hard to have access to a global free market....without a Navy that allows that access to exist. It's impossible to access a free market that has been destroyed by threat of a nuclear attack from some tinpot dictatorship or theocracy, because you wouldn't prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.

[DC Tom]

Easy:

 

He attracts people who have a hard time dealing with the fact that their perceptions and reality rarely meet...the right's version of the scarf-wearing grad student. You take that and the fact that Ron Paul is the perfect internet anti-hero...I mean come on, look at him, you have all these newfags who hate/d their high school history teacher...rooting for a guy that looks like their high school history teacher, but saying things that their teacher wouldn't dream of saying, because...he actually teaches history.

 

That, and Ron Paul embodies "I don't understand it, so let's destroy it!", for the internet hacks especially. I am certain Ron Paul understands why we aren't on the Gold Standard, and why being the reserve currency is the optimal position for the US dollar, but, if he starts talking about destroying the Fed, his click-rate goes through the roof. I am just as certain that 50% of Ron Paul supporters have no idea what the F I just wrote in my last sentence. The positive thing about Paulites...is that 50% of them do, which is a hell of a lot better than the far-left's 5%.

 

Ron Paul is what remains of the exclusive little club of libertarianism from the 90s...where being a little nuts was sorta required, as it was the only way to get attention. Now, as libertarian thought is becoming more and more main stream, and is the entire premise for the TEA party(don't see a lot of religious talk at a TEA party rally, do you?), it's going to be time for Paul to get his gold watch and a nice card.

 

IMHO, Paul does not represent rational libertarian thought on many issues, i.e., Paul's notion that the free market solves national security issues. Ron: it's awfully hard to have access to a global free market....without a Navy that allows that access to exist. It's impossible to access a free market that has been destroyed by threat of a nuclear attack from some tinpot dictatorship or theocracy, because you wouldn't prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.

 

How come you need four paragraphs to say exactly what I said with four words?

[Buff_bills4ever]

How come you need four paragraphs to say exactly what I said with four words?

 

 

Because he's better than you

 

Easy:

 

He attracts people who have a hard time dealing with the fact that their perceptions and reality rarely meet...the right's version of the scarf-wearing grad student. You take that and the fact that Ron Paul is the perfect internet anti-hero...I mean come on, look at him, you have all these newfags who hate/d their high school history teacher...rooting for a guy that looks like their high school history teacher, but saying things that their teacher wouldn't dream of saying, because...he actually teaches history.

 

That, and Ron Paul embodies "I don't understand it, so let's destroy it!", for the internet hacks especially. I am certain Ron Paul understands why we aren't on the Gold Standard, and why being the reserve currency is the optimal position for the US dollar, but, if he starts talking about destroying the Fed, his click-rate goes through the roof. I am just as certain that 50% of Ron Paul supporters have no idea what the F I just wrote in my last sentence. The positive thing about Paulites...is that 50% of them do, which is a hell of a lot better than the far-left's 5%.

 

Ron Paul is what remains of the exclusive little club of libertarianism from the 90s...where being a little nuts was sorta required, as it was the only way to get attention. Now, as libertarian thought is becoming more and more main stream, and is the entire premise for the TEA party(don't see a lot of religious talk at a TEA party rally, do you?), it's going to be time for Paul to get his gold watch and a nice card.

 

IMHO, Paul does not represent rational libertarian thought on many issues, i.e., Paul's notion that the free market solves national security issues. Ron: it's awfully hard to have access to a global free market....without a Navy that allows that access to exist. It's impossible to access a free market that has been destroyed by threat of a nuclear attack from some tinpot dictatorship or theocracy, because you wouldn't prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.

 

Thank you. I kind of figured this was it. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something. Anyone else have something they'd like me to know?

[DC Tom]

Because he's better than you

 

Given that unnecessary verbosity to the degree of being an encumbrance on the salient theses of a discussion is the indisputable hallmark of a disorganized communication process and inadequate mental facility, I suggest that the hypothesis expressed is of significantly limited veracity, and question the qualifications by which you entitle yourself to express it.

 

Or I could just say: You're a !@#$ing idiot. Same thing, much quicker.

 

So if he's better than me, how come I can say exactly what he says, AND have time left over for a beer?

[Buff_bills4ever]

Given that unnecessary verbosity to the degree of being an encumbrance on the salient theses of a discussion is the indisputable hallmark of a disorganized communication process and inadequate mental facility, I suggest that the hypothesis expressed is of significantly limited veracity, and question the qualifications by which you entitle yourself to express it.

 

Or I could just say: You're a !@#$ing idiot. Same thing, much quicker.

 

So if he's better than me, how come I can say exactly what he says, AND have time left over for a beer?

 

 

Honestly bro I'm about 6 beers deep so that first half I will have to read tomorrow, but if you gotta problem with what I said, maybe you can just deal with it

[DC Tom]

Honestly bro I'm about 6 beers deep so that first half I will have to read tomorrow, but if you gotta problem with what I said, maybe you can just deal with it

 

I am dealing with it. What do you think "You're a !@#$ing idiot" was for?

[Buff_bills4ever]

I am dealing with it. What do you think "You're a !@#$ing idiot" was for?

 

 

Ahh... Glad we cleared that up then. Got anything more you'd like to add about Ron Paul?

Edited November 11, 2011 by Buff_bills4ever

[DC Tom]

Ahh... Glad we cleared that up then. Got anything more you'd like about Ron Paul?

 

More? Was there a need to expand on "he appeals to simpletons"?

 

If there is...note the second poster in the thread, who hisself is a nice expansion on "simpleton".

[Buff_bills4ever]

More? Was there a need to expand on "he appeals to simpletons"?

 

If there is...note the second poster in the thread, who hisself is a nice expansion on "simpleton".

 

 

okay then... Carry on...

[DC Tom]

okay then... Carry on...

 

I shall. In fact, I think I'll have a cookie.

[Buff_bills4ever]

I shall. In fact, I think I'll have a cookie.

 

 

I hope that it is enjoyable good sir

[OCinBuffalo]

How come you need four paragraphs to say exactly what I said with four words?

I started to reply when the OP was all there was. After I posted mine, I saw yours....and started laughing, because I knew that you would say this. IF we are going to be honest: your four words takes out my first paragraph...nowhere near my whole post.

 

The assignment wast to explain "the catch". You say what it is, but you don't explain it. So you only get a C+

 

Also, your post is missing:

1. The obligatory shot at Ron Paul supporters

2. The obligatory disclaimer for Paul supporters like dev/null

3. The obligatory shot at the far-left...sos I cans trolls thems

4. A criticism of Ron Paul that uses his own mantra against him and that I haven't heard anywhere else.

5. And nice little twig of the "force my religion on you" people....designed to remind that their days of being in charge are numbered.

 

Because he's better than you

Jesus Christ on a cookie...do you realize what you have done?

Thank you. I kind of figured this was it. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something. Anyone else have something they'd like me to know?

Not sure you would be thanking me if you knew the terrible consequences about to befall you.

 

Telling Tom anyone is better than him just isn't done on this board. See those 25k posts....yeah, it's your ass now.

 

Edited November 11, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[DaveinElma]

How come you need four paragraphs to say exactly what I said with four words?

 

How come you constantly feel the need to knock people down who actually put some thought into their posts?

[GG]

How come you constantly feel the need to knock people down who actually put some thought into their posts?

 

Because it annoys simpletons.

[Juror#8]

Easy:

 

He attracts people who have a hard time dealing with the fact that their perceptions and reality rarely meet...the right's version of the scarf-wearing grad student. You take that and the fact that Ron Paul is the perfect internet anti-hero...I mean come on, look at him, you have all these newfags who hate/d their high school history teacher...rooting for a guy that looks like their high school history teacher, but saying things that their teacher wouldn't dream of saying, because...he actually teaches history.

 

That, and Ron Paul embodies "I don't understand it, so let's destroy it!", for the internet hacks especially. I am certain Ron Paul understands why we aren't on the Gold Standard, and why being the reserve currency is the optimal position for the US dollar, but, if he starts talking about destroying the Fed, his click-rate goes through the roof. I am just as certain that 50% of Ron Paul supporters have no idea what the F I just wrote in my last sentence. The positive thing about Paulites...is that 50% of them do, which is a hell of a lot better than the far-left's 5%.

 

Ron Paul is what remains of the exclusive little club of libertarianism from the 90s...where being a little nuts was sorta required, as it was the only way to get attention. Now, as libertarian thought is becoming more and more main stream, and is the entire premise for the TEA party(don't see a lot of religious talk at a TEA party rally, do you?), it's going to be time for Paul to get his gold watch and a nice card.

 

IMHO, Paul does not represent rational libertarian thought on many issues, i.e., Paul's notion that the free market solves national security issues. Ron: it's awfully hard to have access to a global free market....without a Navy that allows that access to exist. It's impossible to access a free market that has been destroyed by threat of a nuclear attack from some tinpot dictatorship or theocracy, because you wouldn't prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.

 

Hmmmm...

 

1. Ron Paul is popular because he is a constitutional originalist. He is a textualist. He believes that the Constitution is a contract and that we are obliged to abide by it. He doesn't believe that the expansive role of government is substantiated by the 4 corners of that 200+ year old covenant. He probably stays awake at night lamenting Wickard v. Filburn even 70 years later.

 

If you feel differently than Paul with respect to constitutional interpretation, then I'd love to also hear your *historical* view of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. As an aside, for whatever reason it's usually the neo-conservative types who reconcile 21st century U.S. manifest destiny as being constitutionally palatable; however during the same meal, the same entree, the same bite, articulate a textualist argument with respect to the 2nd Amendment. Again I sigh....hmmmm......

 

2. Also, wouldn't the free market, by it's very definition, address "tinpot dictatorships," and "theocracies" with either inclusion or avoidance based on the level of transparency? So if a regime is sour to free market principles, doesn't the show just go on? The free market will either bring goods and services or not and the citizenry will either acquiesce or rebel accordingly; "acquiesce" evidencing a lacking market, "rebel" evidencing a growth market.

 

Isn't that was is happening in Iran? The free market sentiment is slowly freeing the market there. And isn't that the essence of the free market economy?

 

3. Do you believe in an imposition of free market principles by military intervention? Are you convinced that there are many in the Pashtun region of Pakistan who might enjoy beenie babies if they knew about them and that there is no better way to bring attention to cuddly blue, pink and purple toys then through coercion and threat of precision bombing campaigns? The funny thing is, if you do feel this way, then you may be correct. There are probably millions who would love Western Civilization if they were exposed to Western civilization.

 

But if you really appreciate free market sentiment, I mean *really* appreciate it, then why not allow the free market to free the market - notwithstanding the incredibly slow gestation period.

 

4. But all of the above is likely just an over-simplification by scarf-wearing, Starbucks drinking, RINO-liberal-!@#$s, who simply don't understand the global political landscape in a nuanced enough way (I anticipate a "you said it, not me" response to this sentence).

Edited November 11, 2011 by Juror#8

[Jauronimo]

3. Do you believe in an imposition of free market principles by military intervention? Are you convinced that there are many in the Pashtun region of Pakistan who might enjoy beenie babies if they knew about them and that there is no better way to bring attention to cuddly blue, pink and purple toys then through coercion and threat of precision bombing campaigns? The funny thing is, if you do feel this way, then you may be correct. There are probably millions who would love Western Civilization if they were exposed to Western civilization.

Beenie Babies? We're talking about war not one of your sissy slap fights. Exposure to the corrosive elements of American culture will win this and many more wars. It was the deciding blow in the cold war that toppled the Soviets. Never under estimate the power of McDonald's and Pepsi/Coca-Cola.

 

Why does a grown man have beenie babies on the brain? I forgot those existed.

[Tux of Borg]

He is the only one running willing to significantly cut and limit government. The problem is he needs a reality check in regards to his foreign policy.