Back to the OP:
When Paul was doing a bit better than he is now, the media should have covered him more.
They didn’t, I think for two reasons:
Speaking of the supposed media blackout on him, whatever became of that fake eyebrow thing?
I understand the futility of using the words of the FF in an argument.
That being said, there have been wise men in our country’s history who warned us of the excesses of government. To cast this advice aside because the past was less than glorious is foolish.
Again, you totally missed the point of what I said. :rolleyes:
One person’s Excess of Government is another person’s Important and Vital Program. The country’s significantly larger, more diverse, and more complicated than it was 200 years ago, so there might be a need to think about government in a different way.
Sadly, I’ve found more than a few ‘small government’ folks who’s criteria for whether spending is essential or not DOES boil down to “What’s in it for ME?”…
like the nice Rep from Texas who pushed for deep spending cuts, right up until his district lost jobs due to NASA cutbacks.
or the childless folks (or those who send their kids to private schools) who oppose new public education spending.
Being ‘conservative’ USED to mean more than just being a selfish bastard. I’m not sure it does anymore.
Smaller doesn’t necessarily = more efficient, or better… sorry.
I’m beginning to think that there are no actual Libertarians (or even libertarians) in existence. They seem to be mythical beings. Likewise libertarian (or Libertarian) policies. Every time one is pointed out, someone will be along to say “that’s not a libertarian policy” or “he’s not a libertarian”.
His foreign policy is possibly the worst since Henry Wallace’s in 1948.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian in much the same sense that Mitt Romney is a christian.
He thinks the angel Moroni wrote a sequel to Atlas Shrugged?
Or a prequel . . . There’s a cover story in the October 2012 Harper’s “Pennies from Heaven: How Mormon economics shape the G.O.P.,” by Chris Lehmann, the which I can’t seem to find a link a nonsubscriber can read but I skimmed it on the magazine-rack and the 'Net-buzz on it is fun to watch . . . Summary is, Mormons are more hardcore Wealth-Gospelers than any Calvinist and seem to have actually pushed the GOP even more furtherer along that way.
I was thinking more that neither of them are true Scotsmen either.
Ron Paul calls himself a Libertarian, and Mitt Romney calls himself a christian. I’m not sure if I agree with either one of them, but I suppose I have to acknowledge their own self identification.
As long as nobody calls either of them “Mr. President”, I’ll be happier 
:eek: That book would fall into some sort of black hole of unreadability and general crapitude.
Ron Paul gets coverage, certainly in proportion to his electoral success (minimal to date), not as much as his groupies dazzled by straw poll results would like. Paulites should be grateful he doesn’t get more press attention, as the level of crazy would diminish his already near-nonexistent chances of winning any GOP primaries.
I would not vote for him for several reasons. First, there is the “I don’t wanna and you can’t make me” tone of Libertarianoid politics in general. Specifically, I am disgusted with Paul’s positions on medicine/health-related matters (antivaccination, anti-FDA, pro-raw milk, pro-unproven supplements etc.) He gets an automatic dismissal from me on those beliefs alone. Lastly, I am really tired of hearing from Paulites about the Constitution and Founding Fathers, which they are under the illusion that no one else has ever studied and which they believe hold all the answers to current-day problems, along with the works of fringe economists.
I did like Ron Paul in “Bruno” however.
I always figured the Altas Shrugged escapees (?) would suffer a fate similar to those of Golgafrincham.
They just assume that everyone knows as little about the subject as they do and speak accordingly.
As I’ve said here many times, Libertarian Party candidates aren’t libertarians. They’re conservatives who are okay with pot.
Paul is more of an actual libertarian than most but only in the sense that he doesn’t want the feds telling people what to do. He doesn’t care if the states tell people what to do.
This is in contrast to most conservatives, who are for states’ rights because the feds are keeping them from doing what they want to do (and because the states mostly aren’t). If the states started telling them they couldn’t do things they’d stop talking about states’ rights (much as they do when states tell them they can’t ban gay marriage, or impose national drinking ages).
[QUOTE=WillFarnaby]
Is that wrong? I mean say you find a letter and can’t read it. You’re with two people. One wrote the letter and one didn’t. Who do you ask to interpret it?
[/QUOTE]
This analogy only makes sense if the people you are with are dead. Like the founders. Unless, perhaps, you have a time machine.
So who are the True MacLibertarians, then?
