Politics: A Ron Paul Revolution?
It's no secret that I think most of the Republican frontrunners are a joke (especially when it comes to safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms), so it wasn't surprising to me that Ron Paul managed to raise more than $4 million in one day. As a libertarian-in-Republican's-clothing, Ron Paul is about as different from Giuliani as he is from Hillary. Reading off his policy positions is bound to be confusing for dyed-in-the-wool D's and R's: pro-gun, anti-war, pro-life, anti-PATRIOT Act.
I don't agree with all his positions, but it's hard to find a presidential candidate with the record to back up their rhetoric. If you're talking principles, you're talking Ron Paul:
posted by Mulliga @ 1:01 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
If you're talking principles, you're talking Ron Paul
I agree,,,if you think that being insane is a mark of integrity.
Mr. Paul advocates that we go back to the gold standard, a position that leaves professional economists rolling in the aisles. What would be next, the abolishment of money and the return of the barter system?
Mr. Paul flirted with extreme conspiracy nuts The Truthers for months, before growing alarm over his seeming endorsement of insane theories prompted him to perform damage control and publicly denounce those idiots.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/
To be frank, Mr. Paul was completely off my radar until recently. When I started to become aware of the Internet buzz, I quickly came across his enthusiasm for using gold as a standard of trade.
That wouldn't necessarily cause me to dismiss a candidate since I always allow a politician at least one stupid policy position. But his reluctance to immediately denounce the conspiracy crackpots, and the way that his remarks even indicated a certain agreement with their views, convinced me that Mr. Paul is coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs.
James
I take those Ron Paul comments about there being a "coverup" to be a reference to how badly the government screwed up on 9/11, not some kind of acknowledgement of a vast conspiracy. If Paul truly thought that was the case, wouldn't his _insanity_ dictate some kind of violent action against the people responsible?
I'm sure those Truthers, when they're talking with people, never out-and-out say that they think the U.S. government was behind 9/11 (most people would back away slowly). So they get a lot of sorta-almost-agreeing statements like this from Paul, but never get to the real heart of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home