Jump to content

Why, Ron Paul? Why?


Recommended Posts

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what the purpose was Acworth--to prove Ron Paul has been consistent on his legalize drugs platform since 1988 and is still right as ever?

First, the title of the post is a reference to going on the Morton Downey Jr. show. Why in the world would anyone have done that who wanted to be taken seriously? Second, it's a case study about how you say something being as important as what you say. His *arguments* were sound and reasonable and intelligent. But his *presentation* of those points made him look nuttier than squirrel turds. Third, I posted this as a blast from the past and in a strange way as a counter argument to the notion that politics today is somehow more contentious than it was in the past. I'm not sure there's anything on cable news today that is anywhere near as visceral and angry and polarizing as that was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the title of the post is a reference to going on the Morton Downey Jr. show. Why in the world would anyone have done that who wanted to be taken seriously? Second, it's a case study about how you say something being as important as what you say. His *arguments* were sound and reasonable and intelligent. But his *presentation* of those points made him look nuttier than squirrel turds. Third, I posted this as a blast from the past and in a strange way as a counter argument to the notion that politics today is somehow more contentious than it was in the past. I'm not sure there's anything on cable news today that is anywhere near as visceral and angry and polarizing as that was.

it's just too bad that Americans value rhetoric and flash over logic and reason

surprised that nobody even thought to point out the irony that back in 1988 Ron Paul mentioning the government regulating people's weight and that is starting to happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the title of the post is a reference to going on the Morton Downey Jr. show. Why in the world would anyone have done that who wanted to be taken seriously? Second, it's a case study about how you say something being as important as what you say. His *arguments* were sound and reasonable and intelligent. But his *presentation* of those points made him look nuttier than squirrel turds. Third, I posted this as a blast from the past and in a strange way as a counter argument to the notion that politics today is somehow more contentious than it was in the past. I'm not sure there's anything on cable news today that is anywhere near as visceral and angry and polarizing as that was.

I don't really see why it would have hurt Paul's image to go on that show. That's just who he is. Paul can go on a show like that and manage the exact same message to those jackrabbits as he could to any other interviewer. I don't think there's another politician that could say that. Certainly not the last couple of asshats we have had in the Oval Office.

We'd be a helluva lot better off if Paul had been running the show. It's sad that so many people care about context over content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the title of the post is a reference to going on the Morton Downey Jr. show. Why in the world would anyone have done that who wanted to be taken seriously? Second, it's a case study about how you say something being as important as what you say. His *arguments* were sound and reasonable and intelligent. But his *presentation* of those points made him look nuttier than squirrel turds. Third, I posted this as a blast from the past and in a strange way as a counter argument to the notion that politics today is somehow more contentious than it was in the past. I'm not sure there's anything on cable news today that is anywhere near as visceral and angry and polarizing as that was.

Ah, ok. That show did seem a bit wacko...lol I vaguely remember it. I wasn't exactly into that stuff at 16 years of age...lol

As for presentation, given the people he was arguing with, he didn't have much of a choice but that goes back to #1.

Yeah, hard for me to imagine anything other than Nancy Grace or Jane Velasquez that rivals that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, first off Ron Paul is not a libertarian..he's a gutless slimy Republican who's too wishy-washy to take a stand ,then cries when his repub buddies dump all over him. Second...he's a buffoon.

wishy-washy? Yeah, you have no idea what the **** you're talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...