Why Ron Paul is not a loony old man

    Which is what I heard him described as.  Interestingly enough by a political blogger I tend to respect, overlooking the fact that he supports that loony middle aged man, Mitt Romney.  You read a lot here about why I think Ron Paul is the wrong man for the job.  You also read a lot here about what a pack of moronic orangutans the pauliacs are.  You do not however read any particular disrespect for the man himself.

    The reason for that is on so many issues he is dead right.  Not the little ones…abortion, gun control,  drug legalization, and all the other little niche issues that are rolled out every few years so we can delineate between the idiot and the cow dung that we have to choose from.  On a lot of the big ones though the man is not wrong.

What kind of a hose monkey thinks we don’t need stronger borders?

Who in their right mind supports our current foreign policy agenda, and can’t find sense in a policy of non-interventionism?  Of not going to war unless congress declares war?

Who doesn’t think our government wastes way to much money?  Is it really more important to fight a war in Iraq than to rebuild an infrastructure  that is aging as quickly as the population.

Do you really support the major trade agreements currently shaping the  U.S. economic collapse?  Don’t tell me about the stock market here you dolt.  Tell me about Trade imbalance and deficits.

Further, if he didn’t couch it in terms of states rights I would wholeheartedly support this loony old man.  My problem is I don’t think the states have any more right to dictate to my daughter whether she can have an abortion or not.  It is, to all you idiots that are pro life…none of your  business.  It’s hard fr me to understand a party that is so much more concerned about the unborn than it is about the currently living.

   It is an unfortunate reality that I am not represented by the clowns on the right. or the jokers on the left.  Ron Paul is currently the only candidate that should make sense to anyone in the middle, and unfortunately he is about as electable as a drag queen.  More’s the pity. 

This is not an endorsement of Ron Paul.  I think allowing the young to opt out of Social Security is a stupid idea designed to appease his young voters.  I think a whole host of his other ideas are the wrong cure for the current problem.  What makes him better than the rest of the perfectly coiffed, properly crowned nitwits on that stage today was he at least recognizes the problems we face.

Advertisements

10 Responses to Why Ron Paul is not a loony old man

  1. Hope says:

    Even if we don’t always agree. I do greatly respect your opinion. Great article!

  2. hello hope, and thank you.

  3. I think Paul is a loony old man not so much for his beliefs (although a lot of those are loony, too) but for his tactics. Did you watch the debate this morning? The more excited he gets, the higher pitched his voice got. He looked like he’d excaped from the maximum security wing of a local nursing home. When he started going off about neocons, I thought his head would rotate and he would spew out some pea soup. And I would rather listen to nails on a chalkboard than read another blog comment from one of his cronies who *actually* believes he’s going to win.

    On a lot of issues, I tend to lean libertarian. But when it comes to the Constiution, I think Paul convieniently happens to overlook about 200 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. He essentially wants to return us to the Articles of Confederation – and that worked out so well to begin with. The man has apparently never heard of a “little-known” supreme court case called Gibbons v. Ogden. Of course, Paul is not a lawyer, and from the looks of it – niether are his supporters.

    And don’t get me started on all the 9/11 truther stuff.

    So, yeah, I think he’s a loony old man, and I stand by that.

  4. hi prac…you didn’t have to own that. Since you did though, I agree with almost all of what you just said. I think a little stridence is ok when talking about the run of the mill hard right liberals that are running the conservative agenda.

    He usually doesn’t get trident, and i just went to view that clip. I think he is feeling the strain. He was not very impressive in the foxnews clips either.

    and just to clarify. The reason I think Mitt is loony is the switch on abortion. I’ve been alive through the entire history of roe v. wade, and not one time have I changed my stance on it. I just can’t see how he could’ve ever been pro choice with his spiritual beliefs, and wonder what kind of man compromises himself on an issue like that? It makes him really hard to trust. He does look presidential though.
    thanks for coming by

  5. Well, here’s the thing about Mitt – it is possible to be a good Mormon and still be pro-choice. Moreso than most other religions, Mormonism advocates a separation between personal religious observance and dictating public poilcy. Watch the clip of when Mitt got ambushed by that radio host in Iowa, it think he does a good job of underscoring that point. This separation is often hard for both Evangelicals and the nonreligious to understand.

    That being said, I think people’s minds are often changed when they are in the position to make important decisions. For example, I am firmly pro-death penalty. However, one day I might be governor and have before me a decision to spare a life on death row. Might my stance change? Maybe – until that time, I may not quite realize the consequences and seriousness of the debate. Of course, keep in mind that Mitt was running as governor of Mass. Could a pro-life Mitt have won? Not likely.

    Of course, there is very little a president can do to change abortion policy. Most religious conservatives don’t understand this. Bush has been, perhaps, our most anti-abortion president to date – and has Roe changed at all? No. Heaven forbid, we get a President Brownback in the Oval office (*shudder*). Can he do anything – outside of appointing constiutionalist judges – to alter abortion policy? No.

    I’ve also seen a few people go from pro-Roe to anti-Roe once they have examined the (flimsy – IMO) constiutional pretext of Blackmun’s decision. Most of these people were lawyers or law students, and were looking at the issue from a purely legal standpoint.

  6. Jason says:

    I disagree, although I can see your side. I think that the “states rights” approach is much economically and socially superior to the current “all or nothing” federal system we have in place. If california wants to become socialistic, then at least you could move out. If Texas bans abortions and you don’t support that, then you could either petition your state (and have more success than you would petitioning the Fed) or you could leave and move to a state that is more in line with your philosophy. As it is now, the federal government treats everything like people in Alabama are the same as people in Southern California. Its not so.

    So long as this is done in a manner that allows the individual to retain their rights, like not bringing back segrigation, etc, then I am all for it.

  7. I agree that the legal standing for Roe v. is tenuous at best, but from a purely liberty and decency standpoint, it is a reasonable freedom for an individual to have

    He probably could not have won Massachusetts. The problem I have revolves around just that factor. What makes a man think he is so important, that a core belief becomes secondary to the need of society in his eyes?

    you make valid points, and I did look at the video after we posted last. The guy in Iowa is an asshole. It was a setup from the start, and you’re right, Mitt handled it admirably, as he does most things. there is no doubt he is an imposing personality.

    thanks for your comments

  8. hi Jason. I’ve done posts on how problematic that would be, but just on the surface, I can’t see how it is economically sound to have 50 supremem lawmaking bodies, and one inferior yet capable of overruling body to watch dog the circus.

    I see your side as well, but can’t see how Ron has explaned how he will make any of it happen, and that is the litmus test to me.

    thanks for coming by

  9. Braden says:

    Haha, well as the host of the blog where the comment “loony old man” was used, I figured I had to comment on this one.

    I don’t think Ron Paul’s a loony old man. I think he’s committed to protecting the Constitution. The only problem is that his interpretation is very different than about 90% of other Americans. Personally, I’d say his stances are consistent (if you live in his dreamworld) yet short-sighted and a little crazy.

    From a Republican perspective, his stances are really not all that consistent (see my post: Dirt on Ron Paul).

    The man’s a libertarian. I wish he would just admit it like he used to. That’s why his rambling in the debates seems completely irrelevant to the discussion. He’s not a real Republican.

    That doesn’t make him a loony old man. It just makes him a libertarian.

  10. Braden says:

    Oh and Jason, as an Alabamian, I really don’t see the federal government treating us exactly the same as Southern California. As far as our own government goes, it’s allowed to be VERY different than Southern California. As a result, we’ve got a pretty good thing going here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: