Ron Paul, Loonie Ideas.... Hey Wait

[corplinx]

Sometime the gag reflex on ideas and memes doesn't kick in until you have already hit the keyboard.....


I was happily enjoying one of the current threads on Ron Paul and everyone is making fun of the guy and his wacky ideas.

I conducted a thought experiment. If I took Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney and put them in a small/obscure third party, would their ideas seem nonsensical?

The answer was a resounding a yes. The two major parties dish out the political woo constantly but people's own biases towards the party of their least disliking and the fact that the ideas are so widespread make them seem normal.

Ex: Spending 35 BILLION dollars in new social spending when you are running deficits. This idea is just as silly as any Ron Paul idea. The republicans seem to be less loonie since they are trying to get just 5 billion. However, that is still an amazing amount of money when you are already in the hole. Its still loonie. As if it is a justification of such loonie excess, we are offered comparisons of how much it costs next to a full occupation of a foreign country (which is also a large deficit item).


When we marginalize people like Ron Paul, we are essentially saying "You loonie ideas are mainstream enough to be taken seriously. I like my loonie ideas to be believed by at least 40 percent of the voting public."

[Random]

Ex: Spending 35 BILLION dollars in new social spending when you are running deficits. This idea is just as silly as any Ron Paul idea. The republicans seem to be less loonie since they are trying to get just 5 billion. However, that is still an amazing amount of money when you are already in the hole. Its still loonie. As if it is a justification of such loonie excess, we are offered comparisons of how much it costs next to a full occupation of a foreign country (which is also a large deficit item).

I agree. More government spending while we have a deficit is irresponsible. This is why we need to raise taxes on the rich until their eyes pop out of their sockets. Balance the budget on the backs of the plutocrats.

That is what you meant, right? :D

[Oliver]

Ron Pauls foreign policy Ideas are revolutionary ...
Well, actually not: Common sense.

I like this guy - he's like a good-hearted Grandpa.
But his health-care plans suck if he really thinks
that investment-based Health care is good for
patients...

[Undesired Walrus]

Ron Pauls foreign policy Ideas are revolutionary ...
Well, actually not: Common sense.


no.

[dudalb]

Of course Oliver likes Ron Paul's ideas.
He would not have all those Evil Americans running around anymore.

[Oliver]

Of course Oliver likes Ron Paul's ideas.
He would not have all those Evil Americans running around anymore.


Yes, this is a major point for all those evil Non-Americans, indeed.

Hello America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zqbz563pNQ)
On the other Hand, the reputation can't get worse anyway, can it? :eek:

So, what points of Ron Paul are straightway dumb IYHO?
And why do you think this way?

[Undesired Walrus]

So, what points of Ron Paul are straightway dumb IYHO?
And why do you think this way?

Him simplistic vision that 'they attack us because we are over there'. Probably as simplistic and wrong as 'They hate us for our Freedoms'.

[GreNME]

Ex: Spending 35 BILLION dollars in new social spending when you are running deficits. This idea is just as silly as any Ron Paul idea. The republicans seem to be less loonie since they are trying to get just 5 billion.

What dimension are you from that doesn't have the US involved in a money-vacuum of a war that was championed by none other than our POTUS administration? And cutting taxes when in debt-- would you like an increase in bills with those lowered wages, sir? Last I checked Bush and his administration were from the Republican Party, but I could be wrong.


When we marginalize people like Ron Paul, we are essentially saying "You loonie ideas are mainstream enough to be taken seriously. I like my loonie ideas to be believed by at least 40 percent of the voting public."

Really, I agree that Ron Paul isn't deserving of as much vitriol as he gets, but many of his ideas-- especially economic and diplomatic-- are not just incorrect but reflect a desire to make radical changes for a gamble of what might be a little better, but maybe not, but maybe there's a tiny chance things could be really good (but probably not). Yep, he makes a nice, folksy, 'straight-talking ya' kind of delivery and sales pitch, but the substance behind a lot of his ideas are based a lot on an "everything will work itself out" kind of laisses faire approach to everything. That may seem like it works for you, and in that case go ahead and vote for him in the primaries coming up (hope you're registered Republican). For a lot of people, that seems a bit irresponsible for a person who is essentially looked at as the country's executive 'leader'.

[corplinx]

What dimension are you from that doesn't have the US involved in a money-vacuum of a war that was championed by none other than our POTUS administration? And cutting taxes when in debt-- would you like an increase in bills with those lowered wages, sir? Last I checked Bush and his administration were from the Republican Party, but I could be wrong.



And hence you fall victim to the notions that help us not see how loonie these ideas are. We equivocate, we blame, but ultimately the situation comes down to spending BILLIONS of new spending when we are already in the hole. Noth parties want to do this.

This is a loonie idea.

[GreNME]

And hence you fall victim to the notions that help us not see how loonie these ideas are. We equivocate, we blame, but ultimately the situation comes down to spending BILLIONS of new spending when we are already in the hole. Noth parties want to do this.

This is a loonie idea.

You are misreading what I said. I was responding to your claim that the Republican ideas seem less loonie. If you want to call stuff loonie, then I'd advise you be a little less discriminating. You're showing your bias.

[corplinx]

You are misreading what I said. I was responding to your claim that the Republican ideas seem less loonie. If you want to call stuff loonie, then I'd advise you be a little less discriminating. You're showing your bias.

Ever talk with someone who just doesn't "get it."

I was saying that some would say that the republicans don't look loonie in comparison on the same issue. However, I pointed out that 5 BILLION dollars is a lot of money and its still a loonie idea. Its only looks non-loonie compared to 35.

Now do you understand?

[GreNME]

Ever talk with someone who just doesn't "get it."

I was saying that some would say that the republicans don't look loonie in comparison on the same issue. However, I pointed out that 5 BILLION dollars is a lot of money and its still a loonie idea. Its only looks non-loonie compared to 35.

Now do you understand?

I know what you are saying. I'm saying that you are wrong.

Now do you understand?

[GreNME]

I see, I thought you actually had points with your "you know, they're all a little bit crazy" stuff in your original statements. That is, I was working under the impression that you were not simply making a superficial comment that was not just a platitude similar to "a broken clock is right twice a day" or something. I was assuming you actually had specific and reasoned aspects that you could reference to flesh out your otherwise nebulous and vague original post, and that perhaps challenging you to actually address one of those points by actually talking about what I was saying in a meaningful and specific manner (as opposed to responding with more generalized platitudes) would encourage you to share those details.

I can see I was wrong.

If you could, would you like to actually take one policy of one candidate at a time, and explain what you find crazy about it to give what you were saying a bit more substance?

[corplinx]

I see, I thought you actually had points with your "you know, they're all a little bit crazy" stuff in your original statements. That is, I was working under the impression that you were not simply making a superficial comment that was not just a platitude similar to "a broken clock is right twice a day" or something. I was assuming you actually had specific and reasoned aspects that you could reference to flesh out your otherwise nebulous and vague original post, and that perhaps challenging you to actually address one of those points by actually talking about what I was saying in a meaningful and specific manner (as opposed to responding with more generalized platitudes) would encourage you to share those details.

I can see I was wrong.

If you could, would you like to actually take one policy of one candidate at a time, and explain what you find crazy about it to give what you were saying a bit more substance?

You misunderstood my post, thought there was something partisan about something that wasn't, and now your digging to find something else dismissive since you are embarassed.

You know kiddo, sometimes its okay to say "oops, my bad". Works for me at least.

If you want a list of crazy positions, just look at things that seemed normal or mundane before and pretend its Ron Paul saying it.

Imagine Ron Paul stonewalling social security reform since there isn't really a looming problem.

Imagine Ron Paul passing federal legislation against gay marriage despite the bill of rights religion establishment clause.

Many of the humdrum things congress has done or tried to do look loonie if you put a loonie face on them.

[Snide]

I know what you are saying. I'm saying that you are wrong.

Now do you understand?Speaking of third parties, please allow me, a third party, to butt in and try.

You are saying, "Oh, sure, $5 billion is less loony when you conveniently forget about the hundreds of billions spent on the war!"

Corplinx is saying, "On the issue of new social spending alone, $5 billion seems less loony, but is still loony. War spending and other issues are just that....other issues."

So you may be right, but so is corplinx, and he is not necessarily disagreeing with you on the issue of overall spending. But the issue he chose for an example was new social spending. Maybe his choice indicated his bias, but he's entitled AFAIAC.

[corplinx]

Speaking of third parties, please allow me, a third party, to butt in and try.

You are saying, "Oh, sure, $5 billion is less loony when you conveniently forget about the hundreds of billions spent on the war!"

Corplinx is saying, "On the issue of new social spending alone, $5 billion seems less loony, but is still loony. War spending and other issues are just that....other issues."

So you may be right, but so is corplinx, and he is not necessarily disagreeing with you on the issue of overall spending. But the issue he chose for an example was new social spending. Maybe his choice indicated his bias, but he's entitled AFAIAC.

I tried picking an issue where both parties were loonie in the same way. At first I thought I'd pick gay marriage for the pubs and something else for the crats, but I figured people would be smart enough to see what I was trying to do.

[Gurdur]

I tried picking an issue where both parties were loonie in the same way. At first I thought I'd pick gay marriage for the pubs and something else for the crats, but I figured people would be smart enough to see what I was trying to do.

Well, we're not all idiots. I do see the point, but in many ways, it's a rather difficult thing to argue over, since it is very complex indeed.

[Whack01]

I'd just like to say that although I'm a conservative, I think that my party should have granted this spending request. The reason I say this has nothing to do with the bill, deficits and very little to do with sick children.

I wanted my party to pass this bill simply for the sake of compromise and unity. Although war spending seems like a logical red herring when determining whether or not we have the cash to fund the program, it's not a red herring in considering the civil implications of blocking the children's bill. Namely that a large (and quite ticked) portion of our population is being forced to pay for a war they don't want to fight and aren't being thrown any bones in a compromise.


As for Ron Paul, he wants to abolish the dept of education and that's not even the main reason why I don't like him. I dislike Ron Paul because he has run what is, in my opinion, an intellectually dishonest internet campaign in an attempt to make it look like he has grassroots support. This guy is the main reason why I no longer visit digg or reddit, too much gaming of the system. In my not so humble opinion, many of his early followers displayed very cultish traits on various forums and reminded me strongly of the 9/11 conspiracy loons (copy/paste arguments, youtube propaganda videos, gaming social news sites, gaming polls and distorting quotes). What scares me is he now appears to have real grassroots support.

[leftysergeant]

As far as I can see, Paul has been right, but only to a degree, on three issues in his career. Get out of Iraq, restore habeas corpus and the Posse Commitatus Act and stop messing with gun owners.

Okay, the only one of those with which we are in total agreement is habeas corpus and Posse Commitatus. Other than that, he just wants out of Iraq not for humanitarian but ecconomic reasons. Right for the wrong reason. And he would do nothing about adressing the black market in guns. Seems Libertarians are the first to scream rape when there is a new restriction ofn sales of guns to wife beaters and substance abusers.

As for dealing with social issues, even those that cost no money, like curbing the consolidation of media ownership, I see him as worse thasn useless. He seems to suffer from the common delusion that the "free market" will make everything right.

Bollocks!

The free market is why Rush Limpball is the most widely broadcast radio host in America. The only thing "free" abopuit the market forces involved here is that those who want the fat deaf self-abuser in the best slots on the best signals mostly have the money to buy the stations out from under people like Thom Hartmann (who eats the fat man's lunch where they are equally available.)

The free market is free only for those who can afford it.

We simply have to raise taxes on some people to raise the funds to cxorrect the mess that Bush has made of this country, and quickly. I would like to identify the war profiteers and mercenaries and turn them upside down and shake vigorously and then give them a twist. No one has a right to grow rich from war. That takes it from being a patriotic act to being mere piracy.
Ron paul is not going to do that. He doesn't even believe in an income tax.

He needs to work on policies that will work on this astral plane.

And his minions are now invading every liberal board they can find, polaying Trojan horse.

What a nuisance.

[Whack01]

The free market is why Rush Limpball is the most widely broadcast radio host in America. The only thing "free" abopuit the market forces involved here is that those who want the fat deaf self-abuser in the best slots on the best signals mostly have the money to buy the stations out from under people like Thom Hartmann (who eats the fat man's lunch where they are equally available.)

The free market is free only for those who can afford it.


Not to be rude, but if I may point out that in a free market in the event that he didn't eat the mans lunch where he was available, he would not be available in that location. So this does not logically support the assertion that Hartmann is being bought out of markets where he would be able to "eat the fat man's lunch".

[VanillaCone]

Insisting that a free enterprise system completely exempt from government regulation will do right by the masses when there is ample historical evidence to the contrary is just plain looney. Many components of government seem unneccessary today because government has long since stepped in and corrected the injustices and inequities it was designed to correct. If government went away, those problems would resurface over time, and we would need government intervention again.

I don't like seeing people's hard-earned money wasted on frivolous government spending, but people like Ron Paul cannot see the distinction between frivolous government spending and worthwhile government spending. He believes all government spending is frivolous, and all personal spending is worthwhile.

By his logic, a Vegas weekend with cocaine and hookers is more worthwhile than a government program to help prevent the spread of AIDS. Now that I think about it, he's probably right.

Unless the hookers have AIDS.

[GreNME]

You misunderstood my post, thought there was something partisan about something that wasn't, and now your digging to find something else dismissive since you are embarassed.

You know kiddo, sometimes its okay to say "oops, my bad". Works for me at least.

If you want a list of crazy positions, just look at things that seemed normal or mundane before and pretend its Ron Paul saying it.

Imagine Ron Paul stonewalling social security reform since there isn't really a looming problem.

Imagine Ron Paul passing federal legislation against gay marriage despite the bill of rights religion establishment clause.

Many of the humdrum things congress has done or tried to do look loonie if you put a loonie face on them.

Then why don't you actually pick one from each candidate, describe it accurately instead of trying to reduce it and failing miserably, and then this thread can get back on track?

As an aside, the only thing being called "kiddo" by someone who displays an obvious lack of understanding about the situation they're describing does for me is show me that they really don't want to discuss anything. Basically, corplinx, I'm asking you to let go of the sermon and actually get into discussion by contributing some facts. If you seriously think it's all pretty much as worthless and as stupid as you seem to be describing it, then go ahead and don't vote in the elections, and those of us who do will continue to contribute to the decision making process in the ways we have available.

If you're actually seriously considering Paul as a candidate, then either register as a Republican so you can vote in the primaries or expect to not be taken seriously after he loses.

The same goes for the rest of the candidates. The first step is the primaries, and after that the general race that has yet to start. The platitudes and the half-baked philosophizing are completely useless and the last bastion of someone who has come to a decision before ever looking at the details.