100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Ron Paul most dangerous of the GOP Article (WP) | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ron-paul-is-the-most-dangerous-man-in-the-republican-party/2012/01/11/gIQApX05qP_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics
Where in the article does it account for the Democratic facto upset with the current administration and willing to vote for Paul making it an extremely close to call 3 way, possibly sliding Paul into office. Thus displacing both the Republicans and Democrats from the White House? He has quite a following second carrying 10 delegates in the current GOP race. Quoting the article above "78 percent of Paul’s New Hampshire support came from those who are dissatisfied or angry with the Obama administration", which would be the non-affiliated allowed to vote in the primaries. I do not have number on the Democratic side, obviously the current agenda remains about the Republicans. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol... Shows a nation approval rate of 22%, a 39% strong disapproval rate, therefore subjectively speaking leaving a Democratic disapproval rate in there somewhere deductively speaking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My thoughts.... if the repugs want their logo in the WH, and seriously want to rebuild their party (back to what it was before the Shrubs) then RP is the only sensible choice. He carries the young, independent and dem vote, added to the rep vote, he could beat BOTH Rummy and Owe-Bummer! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know people who voted for Obama because they thought he would be bringing our troops home, cutting military spending, closing down Guantanamo, etc. They don't want to vote for Obama, and the don't want to vote republican. I think they would vote for RP.
I think there are a lot of socially liberally, fiscally conservative people who voted dem last time who vote for RP - but not any of the other republican candidates. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My thoughts.... if the repugs want their logo in the WH, and seriously want to rebuild their party (back to what it was before the Shrubs) then RP is the only sensible choice. He carries the young, independent and dem vote, added to the rep vote, he could beat BOTH Rummy and Owe-Bummer!  In the '08 cycle I personally knew a die-hard Dem who switched to GOP to vote for Ron in the primaries. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My thoughts.... if the repugs want their logo in the WH, and seriously want to rebuild their party (back to what it was before the Shrubs) then RP is the only sensible choice. He carries the young, independent and dem vote, added to the rep vote, he could beat BOTH Rummy and Owe-Bummer! I think there is one alternative to this. Rand as the VP... I don't know if he would even consider it, but he is the future and all the voters Ron has brought would certainly vote for Rand. The debates between Rand and the idiot Biden would be a classic beat down. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but Rand is the guy to move this forward.. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Optomistic69
on
Thu 01/12/12 06:04 AM
|
|
My thoughts.... if the repugs want their logo in the WH, and seriously want to rebuild their party (back to what it was before the Shrubs) then RP is the only sensible choice. He carries the young, independent and dem vote, added to the rep vote, he could beat BOTH Rummy and Owe-Bummer! I think there is one alternative to this. Rand as the VP... I don't know if he would even consider it, but he is the future and all the voters Ron has brought would certainly vote for Rand. The debates between Rand and the idiot Biden would be a classic beat down. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but Rand is the guy to move this forward.. Just the mention of Rand (I know, not that Rand] brought to mind this article which I found very interesting. Extract from article... Why Ron Paul is dangerous – and why he’s not It’s not really a surprise that these otherwise bright, hyper-informed young students made the mistake though. Many of them still would, seven years later. Libertarianism is a curiously American affliction, which never really took hold on the British political psyche. We may not be as left-wing a country as the intelligentsia or I would like, but we’ve been weaned on a solid welfare state and we do not share the radical mean streak of US politics, or ‘rugged individualism’ as their furious circumlocution would have it. ============== I thought Thatcher was bad. Radical and mean libertarianism most certainly is. It’s the politics of pure selfishness, even more than Thatcherism. It’s an economic theory based in the main on the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, a Russian émigré to the US in the early 20th Century, who bought wholesale into the American Dream, and whose ideas were basically an attempt to legitimise her overwhelming sense of superiority. Simply put, objectivism states that creators, innovators and other ‘great men’ owe nothing to the human heard whom they supposedly support, and that they are justified in exploiting them http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/01/11/why-ron-paul-is-dangerous-%E2%80%93-and-why-he%E2%80%99s-not/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 01/12/12 06:28 AM
|
|
My thoughts.... if the repugs want their logo in the WH, and seriously want to rebuild their party (back to what it was before the Shrubs) then RP is the only sensible choice. He carries the young, independent and dem vote, added to the rep vote, he could beat BOTH Rummy and Owe-Bummer! I think there is one alternative to this. Rand as the VP... I don't know if he would even consider it, but he is the future and all the voters Ron has brought would certainly vote for Rand. The debates between Rand and the idiot Biden would be a classic beat down. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but Rand is the guy to move this forward.. Just the mention of Rand (I know, not that Rand] brought to mind this article which I found very interesting. Extract from article... Why Ron Paul is dangerous – and why he’s not It’s not really a surprise that these otherwise bright, hyper-informed young students made the mistake though. Many of them still would, seven years later. Libertarianism is a curiously American affliction, which never really took hold on the British political psyche. We may not be as left-wing a country as the intelligentsia or I would like, but we’ve been weaned on a solid welfare state and we do not share the radical mean streak of US politics, or ‘rugged individualism’ as their furious circumlocution would have it. ============== I thought Thatcher was bad. Radical and mean libertarianism most certainly is. It’s the politics of pure selfishness, even more than Thatcherism. It’s an economic theory based in the main on the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, a Russian émigré to the US in the early 20th Century, who bought wholesale into the American Dream, and whose ideas were basically an attempt to legitimise her overwhelming sense of superiority. Simply put, objectivism states that creators, innovators and other ‘great men’ owe nothing to the human heard whom they supposedly support, and that they are justified in exploiting them http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/01/11/why-ron-paul-is-dangerous-%E2%80%93-and-why-he%E2%80%99s-not/ Ayn Rand was extremely critical of Libertarianism! 
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libertarians.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
InvictusV
on
Thu 01/12/12 07:42 AM
|
|
My thoughts.... if the repugs want their logo in the WH, and seriously want to rebuild their party (back to what it was before the Shrubs) then RP is the only sensible choice. He carries the young, independent and dem vote, added to the rep vote, he could beat BOTH Rummy and Owe-Bummer! I think there is one alternative to this. Rand as the VP... I don't know if he would even consider it, but he is the future and all the voters Ron has brought would certainly vote for Rand. The debates between Rand and the idiot Biden would be a classic beat down. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but Rand is the guy to move this forward.. Just the mention of Rand (I know, not that Rand] brought to mind this article which I found very interesting. Extract from article... Why Ron Paul is dangerous – and why he’s not It’s not really a surprise that these otherwise bright, hyper-informed young students made the mistake though. Many of them still would, seven years later. Libertarianism is a curiously American affliction, which never really took hold on the British political psyche. We may not be as left-wing a country as the intelligentsia or I would like, but we’ve been weaned on a solid welfare state and we do not share the radical mean streak of US politics, or ‘rugged individualism’ as their furious circumlocution would have it. ============== I thought Thatcher was bad. Radical and mean libertarianism most certainly is. It’s the politics of pure selfishness, even more than Thatcherism. It’s an economic theory based in the main on the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, a Russian émigré to the US in the early 20th Century, who bought wholesale into the American Dream, and whose ideas were basically an attempt to legitimise her overwhelming sense of superiority. Simply put, objectivism states that creators, innovators and other ‘great men’ owe nothing to the human heard whom they supposedly support, and that they are justified in exploiting them http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/01/11/why-ron-paul-is-dangerous-%E2%80%93-and-why-he%E2%80%99s-not/ Ayn Rand was extremely critical of Libertarianism!
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libertarians.html
In the Europeans eyes Ron Paul is dangerous because he wants to close US bases and force the Europeans to defend themselves. Not to mention the loss of substantial revenue.. Austrian economics is the antithesis of elite controlled centralized government.. Which the Euros seem to prefer.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We Europeans have The Germans on board now Remember....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We Europeans have The Germans on board now Remember....
Its funny that you mention that.. I remember seeing a documentary about post war Germany and their ambitions looking forward.. They realized they couldn't conquer the world militarily, so they set about doing it economically.. Careful what you wish for my friend.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We Europeans have The Germans on board now Remember....
Its funny that you mention that.. I remember seeing a documentary about post war Germany and their ambitions looking forward.. They realized they couldn't conquer the world militarily, so they set about doing it economically.. Careful what you wish for my friend.. I am doing fine Thank you...Social Democracy is Good for us......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We Europeans have The Germans on board now Remember....
Its funny that you mention that.. I remember seeing a documentary about post war Germany and their ambitions looking forward.. They realized they couldn't conquer the world militarily, so they set about doing it economically.. Careful what you wish for my friend.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We Europeans have The Germans on board now Remember....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We Europeans have The Germans on board now Remember....
They'll never know what hit them.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But here’s why Ron Paul isn’t dangerous. He’s an ideologue, and pure, unmasked libertarianism isn’t to the taste of the majority of the US. It’s too cruel, even for them. Paul is polling as well as he ever will. His passionate 23% in New Hampshire is everyone who supports him, and he just doesn’t have the appeal to win centrists to his callous cause. He has a hyper-involved fanbase, largely young men doomed to stalk the earth as perpetual 17-year-old boys, totally blind to social reality, all howling at once about their right to smoke cannabis. They’re obsessed with returning the country back to how it was meant to be in the Constitution, as though a 300-year-old document written by people unable to predict the future could ever be a sound basis for 21st Century government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Seakolony
on
Thu 01/12/12 10:06 AM
|
|
My thoughts.... if the repugs want their logo in the WH, and seriously want to rebuild their party (back to what it was before the Shrubs) then RP is the only sensible choice. He carries the young, independent and dem vote, added to the rep vote, he could beat BOTH Rummy and Owe-Bummer! I think there is one alternative to this. Rand as the VP... I don't know if he would even consider it, but he is the future and all the voters Ron has brought would certainly vote for Rand. The debates between Rand and the idiot Biden would be a classic beat down. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but Rand is the guy to move this forward.. Just the mention of Rand (I know, not that Rand] brought to mind this article which I found very interesting. Extract from article... Why Ron Paul is dangerous – and why he’s not It’s not really a surprise that these otherwise bright, hyper-informed young students made the mistake though. Many of them still would, seven years later. Libertarianism is a curiously American affliction, which never really took hold on the British political psyche. We may not be as left-wing a country as the intelligentsia or I would like, but we’ve been weaned on a solid welfare state and we do not share the radical mean streak of US politics, or ‘rugged individualism’ as their furious circumlocution would have it. ============== I thought Thatcher was bad. Radical and mean libertarianism most certainly is. It’s the politics of pure selfishness, even more than Thatcherism. It’s an economic theory based in the main on the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, a Russian émigré to the US in the early 20th Century, who bought wholesale into the American Dream, and whose ideas were basically an attempt to legitimise her overwhelming sense of superiority. Simply put, objectivism states that creators, innovators and other ‘great men’ owe nothing to the human heard whom they supposedly support, and that they are justified in exploiting them http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/01/11/why-ron-paul-is-dangerous-%E2%80%93-and-why-he%E2%80%99s-not/ What a horrible thing...to be in charge of your own destiny. Libertarianism made this country a great, independent, land of opportunity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But here’s why Ron Paul isn’t dangerous. He’s an ideologue, and pure, unmasked libertarianism isn’t to the taste of the majority of the US. It’s too cruel, even for them. Paul is polling as well as he ever will. His passionate 23% in New Hampshire is everyone who supports him, and he just doesn’t have the appeal to win centrists to his callous cause. He has a hyper-involved fanbase, largely young men doomed to stalk the earth as perpetual 17-year-old boys, totally blind to social reality, all howling at once about their right to smoke cannabis. They’re obsessed with returning the country back to how it was meant to be in the Constitution, as though a 300-year-old document written by people unable to predict the future could ever be a sound basis for 21st Century government. Believe what the media wants you too. His base is larger than the young. |
|
|
|
|
