Ron Paul and the "Wacko" Label

[Avorysuds]

Ron Paul serves as a good comedy break. Without him we wouldn't have much to laugh at during the debates.

Wel'' be laffing at the GOP when they can't with a GE for many elections to come.

 

[freedombecki]

So the Virginia School is following the Hitler Youth model.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I rest my case

Did the government test atomic weapons in the atmosphere to see what the fallout would do to the people and livestock downwind? YES.

Did the government infect black soldiers with syphillis? YES.

Did the government force sterilization on thousands of citizens in order to 'cleanse' the gene pool? YES.

Did the government give Native Americans smallpox-infected blankets as a form of biological warfare? YES.

AND YOU TRUST THESE PEOPLE AND CALL ME CRAZY??

So he doubles down on nut job

Nuclear Testing and the Downwinders

Tuskegee syphilis experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMy bad on this one, they didn't infect them, they just didn't tell or TREAT them.

Forced Sterilization in the United States - History of Forced Sterilization in the United States

The Straight Dope: Did whites ever give Native Americans blankets infected with smallpox?
A small mistake here, as well. It was the British.

Go read and learn what our 'leaders' have done, fool...

 

[Unkotare]

I love it, lets attack Paul for not being 100% libertarian... Do I get to attack Obama for not being 100% liberal? Omgz! Obama is not 100% like JFK! FAAAAAAAAAAAAKKE!

Who told you JFK was 100% liberal?

 

[Unkotare]

wack·o
   [wak-oh] Show IPA noun, plural wack·os, adjective Slang .
noun
1.
Also, wack. an eccentric, strange, or odd person.
2.
Ron Paul.

I do agree with the OP that Ron Paul supporters are a lot more whacko than he is. Conspiracy Theorists come out of the woodwork for Paul

God willing you'll live long enough to eat those words, jackass. You know what the problem is with people like you? And I don't just mean liberals, either, the stupendous gullibility spans BOTH sides of the aisle. The government pisses on your leg and tells you it's raining, and you DUMBFUCKS believe them!!

You idiots will watch the Zapruder film and STILL claim Oswald shot Kennedy from behind. You can read military and diplomatic cables from November 1941 and STILL believe that FDR didn't know the Japs were coming. You can watch 3 steel structures collapse into their footprints at freefall speed and STILL believe they weren't 'helped' down, even though NOT ONE had ever collapsed in HISTORY!

I hate to quote Franco, but you fucks are DUPES!

You choke on a gnat, yet swallow a camel WHOLE!

You conspiracy nuts are not wanting for zeal.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I do agree with the OP that Ron Paul supporters are a lot more whacko than he is. Conspiracy Theorists come out of the woodwork for Paul

God willing you'll live long enough to eat those words, jackass. You know what the problem is with people like you? And I don't just mean liberals, either, the stupendous gullibility spans BOTH sides of the aisle. The government pisses on your leg and tells you it's raining, and you DUMBFUCKS believe them!!

You idiots will watch the Zapruder film and STILL claim Oswald shot Kennedy from behind. You can read military and diplomatic cables from November 1941 and STILL believe that FDR didn't know the Japs were coming. You can watch 3 steel structures collapse into their footprints at freefall speed and STILL believe they weren't 'helped' down, even though NOT ONE had ever collapsed in HISTORY!

I hate to quote Franco, but you fucks are DUPES!

You choke on a gnat, yet swallow a camel WHOLE!

You conspiracy nuts are not wanting for zeal.

You can call me all you want, if you had half a brain you'd go do some research and find out for yourself, instead of just parroting the government lie. What is it that stops otherwise intelligent people from investigating their own government? Are you all just too afraid of what you'll find? Or is it more than that? Do you have some recessive gene that NEEDS to be led like a sheep to the slaughter? Or did that wonderful government education remove your 'need to know'?

If you're a Bible-believing Christian, how do you think 'the end times' come about if not through the subversion and duplicity of America's government?

Rev.13:11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[e] That number is 666.

 

[konradv]

So smacking a label on someone is all it takes, huh?

He labels himself. From there it just takes looking at libertarian philosophy and realizing, like Marxism, it requires a basic shift in human nature to work.

 

[Jarhead]

Not so much a wacko as having too much faith that his ideas will have positive results. The constitution was not perfect and neither are DR Paul's interpretations. I see too much blind faith and too little critical thinking from him and his camp. Wacko? Maybe not, but certainly not reasonable or eager to closely examine the side effects of these untried policies.

First of all, I agree with what you say...he has too much faith in his ideas...ideas that are a product of his ideology...and he is blind to the short AND long term consequences of many of them.

However, that is exactly how I saw Obama as a candidate and see Obama as our President. He is committed to his ideology and this does not allow him to recognize the short and long term consequences of his ideas

We are a divided country as it pertains to ideology. That is part of what makes America great. Top have an ideologue in the highest position is not in the best interest of overall satisfaction of the populace.

 

[konradv]

Not so much a wacko as having too much faith that his ideas will have positive results. The constitution was not perfect and neither are DR Paul's interpretations. I see too much blind faith and too little critical thinking from him and his camp. Wacko? Maybe not, but certainly not reasonable or eager to closely examine the side effects of these untried policies.

First of all, I agree with what you say...he has too much faith in his ideas...ideas that are a product of his ideology...and he is blind to the short AND long term consequences of many of them.

However, that is exactly how I saw Obama as a candidate and see Obama as our President. He is committed to his ideology and this does not allow him to recognize the short and long term consequences of his ideas

We are a divided country as it pertains to ideology. That is part of what makes America great. Top have an ideologue in the highest position is not in the best interest of overall satisfaction of the populace.

The problem with your analysis is that Obama HASN'T led as an idealogue. Can you give an example where he has done anything major without at a least attempting to go for a compromise?

 

[Jarhead]

Not so much a wacko as having too much faith that his ideas will have positive results. The constitution was not perfect and neither are DR Paul's interpretations. I see too much blind faith and too little critical thinking from him and his camp. Wacko? Maybe not, but certainly not reasonable or eager to closely examine the side effects of these untried policies.

First of all, I agree with what you say...he has too much faith in his ideas...ideas that are a product of his ideology...and he is blind to the short AND long term consequences of many of them.

However, that is exactly how I saw Obama as a candidate and see Obama as our President. He is committed to his ideology and this does not allow him to recognize the short and long term consequences of his ideas

We are a divided country as it pertains to ideology. That is part of what makes America great. Top have an ideologue in the highest position is not in the best interest of overall satisfaction of the populace.

The problem with your analysis is that Obama HASN'T led as an idealogue. Can you give an example where he has done anything major without at a least attempting to go for a compromise?

you may argue these if you believed the rhetoric about how he tried to compromise....but you will be very hard pressed to PROVE that he tried to compromise...all you will have are words...no proof:

Stimulus....no compromise. Sure, he said he wanted it bigger and he compromised by making it smaller...but when one says 2 and the other says 0, 1 is not a compromise....for in this case, 0 was not a starting point...the GOP, AND I, believed that ANY interference by government would slow the recovery.....as it proved to do.

Healthcare....no compromise. Sure, he said he wanted to compromise. And further, he chaired that "reality TV" style debate. But there was no compromise with the right. The ONLY compromise was with the far left who wanted MORE government control over healthcare.

Keystone....I love this one....no compromise. He said no...lobbied for it to be voted against...and when he saw gas prices rising and his bid for re-election possibly being compromised, he decided to make himslef look like he is "compromising by taking credit for the construction of the lower teir of the pipeline...something that did not even require his involvement. Why do I love this one? Because no one cares that millions will be spent on that lower teir and it may prove to be a complete waste of money if he refuses to approve the most important part...the other 1000 miles that will connect it to the oil supply.

Sorry....I see him as an ideologue, where his ideology gets in the way of reason.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This thread is full of hilarious rhetoric.

 

[rightwinger]

First of all, I agree with what you say...he has too much faith in his ideas...ideas that are a product of his ideology...and he is blind to the short AND long term consequences of many of them.

However, that is exactly how I saw Obama as a candidate and see Obama as our President. He is committed to his ideology and this does not allow him to recognize the short and long term consequences of his ideas

We are a divided country as it pertains to ideology. That is part of what makes America great. Top have an ideologue in the highest position is not in the best interest of overall satisfaction of the populace.

The problem with your analysis is that Obama HASN'T led as an idealogue. Can you give an example where he has done anything major without at a least attempting to go for a compromise?

you may argue these if you believed the rhetoric about how he tried to compromise....but you will be very hard pressed to PROVE that he tried to compromise...all you will have are words...no proof:

Stimulus....no compromise. Sure, he said he wanted it bigger and he compromised by making it smaller...but when one says 2 and the other says 0, 1 is not a compromise....for in this case, 0 was not a starting point...the GOP, AND I, believed that ANY interference by government would slow the recovery.....as it proved to do.

Healthcare....no compromise. Sure, he said he wanted to compromise. And further, he chaired that "reality TV" style debate. But there was no compromise with the right. The ONLY compromise was with the far left who wanted MORE government control over healthcare.

Keystone....I love this one....no compromise. He said no...lobbied for it to be voted against...and when he saw gas prices rising and his bid for re-election possibly being compromised, he decided to make himslef look like he is "compromising by taking credit for the construction of the lower teir of the pipeline...something that did not even require his involvement. Why do I love this one? Because no one cares that millions will be spent on that lower teir and it may prove to be a complete waste of money if he refuses to approve the most important part...the other 1000 miles that will connect it to the oil supply.

Sorry....I see him as an ideologue, where his ideology gets in the way of reason.

Let's go to the videotape....

Stimulus:
Obama compromise included 45% of stimulus in tax cuts, gave the states power to distribute the money
Republican compromise: 100% voted against it

Healthcare:
Obama caved on universal healthcare, Obama caved on government option. Obama modeled his plan on the 1990s republican alternative and Romneycare
Republican compromise: 100% voted against it

Keystone:
Obama said more time was needed to evaluate alternative routes
Republican compromise: We demand your decision NOW

 

[Paulie]

Not so much a wacko as having too much faith that his ideas will have positive results. The constitution was not perfect and neither are DR Paul's interpretations. I see too much blind faith and too little critical thinking from him and his camp. Wacko? Maybe not, but certainly not reasonable or eager to closely examine the side effects of these untried policies.

His interpretations of the constitution are simply taking the words literally, and not using their vagueness to claim authorization for anything and everything.

You can call it extreme, but then I would call the left's interpretation extreme.

How about erring on the side of caution and minimalism and then go from there?

What's so bad about that? Some people don't get free shit then? Tough.

 

[rightwinger]

Not so much a wacko as having too much faith that his ideas will have positive results. The constitution was not perfect and neither are DR Paul's interpretations. I see too much blind faith and too little critical thinking from him and his camp. Wacko? Maybe not, but certainly not reasonable or eager to closely examine the side effects of these untried policies.

His interpretations of the constitution are simply taking the words literally, and not using their vagueness to claim authorization for anything and everything.

You can call it extreme, but then I would call the left's interpretation extreme.

How about erring on the side of caution and minimalism and then go from there?

What's so bad about that? Some people don't get free shit then? Tough.

Ron Paul has a simplistic view of the Constitution which ignores 200 years of case law.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The way he speaks somewhat plays into it, as well. High pitched, kind of whiny. Doesn't help.

I disagree with Libertarians on many issues, but I respect and admire their consistency. That's one thing they have over the two silly "major" parties.

.

 

[Paulie]

So smacking a label on someone is all it takes, huh?

He labels himself. From there it just takes looking at libertarian philosophy and realizing, like Marxism, it requires a basic shift in human nature to work.

I'm assuming you're referring to the idea that if we leave the market alone it will chew us all up and spit us out and only the select wealthy will reign supreme?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's been happening for over a century here, and we've certainly not had an unfettered market. In fact we continue to add regulations everywhere you turn around, and somehow the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.

You want to blame it on one or two isolated deregulations like glass steagal, or GLB, or whatever, like somehow our entire economic health hinges on just those few. It's ridiculous.

People call laissez faire econ crazy and say it will never work, yet no one's ever seen it in action. There's ALWAYS been some kind of crippling regulation keeping the little guy out of competition somewhere.

 

[Paulie]

Not so much a wacko as having too much faith that his ideas will have positive results. The constitution was not perfect and neither are DR Paul's interpretations. I see too much blind faith and too little critical thinking from him and his camp. Wacko? Maybe not, but certainly not reasonable or eager to closely examine the side effects of these untried policies.

His interpretations of the constitution are simply taking the words literally, and not using their vagueness to claim authorization for anything and everything.

You can call it extreme, but then I would call the left's interpretation extreme.

How about erring on the side of caution and minimalism and then go from there?

What's so bad about that? Some people don't get free shit then? Tough.

Ron Paul has a simplistic view of the Constitution which ignores 200 years of case law.

Fuck your case law. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the court is the final answer on constitutionality. It doesn't even give them the authority for judicial review. The court awarded ITSELF that power.

 

[Crackerjack]

Ron Paul has a simplistic view of the Constitution which ignores 200 years of case law.

It could be that a fair amount of the case law ignores the Constitution.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So smacking a label on someone is all it takes, huh?

He labels himself. From there it just takes looking at libertarian philosophy and realizing, like Marxism, it requires a basic shift in human nature to work.

I'm assuming you're referring to the idea that if we leave the market alone it will chew us all up and spit us out and only the select wealthy will reign supreme?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's been happening for over a century here, and we've certainly not had an unfettered market. In fact we continue to add regulations everywhere you turn around, and somehow the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.

You want to blame it on one or two isolated deregulations like glass steagal, or GLB, or whatever, like somehow our entire economic health hinges on just those few. It's ridiculous.

People call laissez faire econ crazy and say it will never work, yet no one's ever seen it in action. There's ALWAYS been some kind of crippling regulation keeping the little guy out of competition somewhere.

Actually it worked pretty well under the classical gold standard from 1870 - 1907. But getting into the details would require a new thread. During that time frame the world trade and domestic American market saw great prosperity. It wasn't completely unfettered, but it was largely so. But, that goes back to gold being an anchor to currencies and large global participation was voluntary as opposed to the now central planned policies that have reigned since. Largely in US hegemony globally. it's a complex issue, that's for sure.

 

[Roudy]

So smacking a label on someone is all it takes, huh?

He labels himself. From there it just takes looking at libertarian philosophy and realizing, like Marxism, it requires a basic shift in human nature to work.

I'm assuming you're referring to the idea that if we leave the market alone it will chew us all up and spit us out and only the select wealthy will reign supreme?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's been happening for over a century here, and we've certainly not had an unfettered market. In fact we continue to add regulations everywhere you turn around, and somehow the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.

You want to blame it on one or two isolated deregulations like glass steagal, or GLB, or whatever, like somehow our entire economic health hinges on just those few. It's ridiculous.

People call laissez faire econ crazy and say it will never work, yet no one's ever seen it in action. There's ALWAYS been some kind of crippling regulation keeping the little guy out of competition somewhere.

How about this, anybody who sends out hundreds of "newsletters" with his name and signature on it, containing racist material, and then claims total lack of knowledge and blames "others" for it, certainly has a few screws missing. Remember, Ron Paul also belongs to that other wacko club called "9-11 Truther".