Ron Paul being equated to religious fanaticism...

[jnkbortka]

http://www.tommullen.net/featured/ca...ut-everything/

sorry, I'm feeling like a Paulistinian today :D

[Articulate_Ape]

http://www.tommullen.net/featured/ca...ut-everything/

sorry, I'm feeling like a Paulistinian today :D

The fact is, it is Paul's idealism in the face of the realities of our time that is my problem with him. I agree with most of his positions on principle. However, I also believe in world peace and feeding every hungry child, etc., yet I understand that visualizing those things will not make them happen in the face of the state of the world, both now and into the foreseeable future.

In short, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. The best you can do is not squeeze anymore of it out. The generational pendulum will swing and the zeitgeist with it. What Mr. Paul & Co. are doing, despite their good intentions, is at best remaining part of the conversation (which I actually think is good) and at worst partaking in a different flavor to the hope and change Kool-Aid thing and expecting different results than their counterparts on the Left.

At the end of the day, Paul's real and material impact on the course of this nation will be just exactly what I think he deep down knows it is: A voice from atop a soapbox crying to any who will listen, "Don't forget how this all came to be!"

In that, I think he has been a positive influence (especially on young people). However, if that message is taken to mean, 'We can and must go back there', as it has been by so many of his faithful who believe more than they understand, it is no different than Obama's faithful who believe more than they understand thinking that we can get to Utopia by hoping for it.

You can never get where you are headed by hoping everyone is headed the same way, and you can never get back to the home you remember.

[MountainMan]

The fact of the matter is Ron Paul is a loser of the worst sort. He cares not for the conservative/Republican cause. As a matter of fact, I hope he is excluded from the rest of the debates.

And for those who have "conveniently" forgot, Ron Paul, in his typical fit of stomping his feet, endorsed Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader in 2008 when it became apparent he wouldn't get the nominee.

CNN News Link

[swirling_vortex]

The fact of the matter is Ron Paul is a loser of the worst sort. He cares not for the conservative/Republican cause. As a matter of fact, I hope he is excluded from the rest of the debates.

And for those who have "conveniently" forgot, Ron Paul, in his typical fit of stomping his feet, endorsed Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader in 2008 when it became apparent he wouldn't get the nominee.

CNN News Link

Technically, he endorsed all 3rd party candidates, so it was more of a "Don't vote for the two-party system" gesture.

In the midst of a budget and a monetary crisis, I still feel Paul is the best candidate. None of the other candidates convey to me an understanding of how the operation of the Federal Reserve works and why the quantitative easing solutions won't work. He certainly doesn't take advice from the Keynesian dominated field in academics.

[djones520]

Technically, he endorsed all 3rd party candidates, so it was more of a "Don't vote for the two-party system" gesture.

In the midst of a budget and a monetary crisis, I still feel Paul is the best candidate. None of the other candidates convey to me an understanding of how the operation of the Federal Reserve works and why the quantitative easing solutions won't work. He certainly doesn't take advice from the Keynesian dominated field in academics.

There are others out there who are fiscally sane, and won't lead our country to ruin through their foreign policy though.

[Rockntractor]

There are others out there who are fiscally sane, and won't lead our country to ruin through their foreign policy though.

That would be a plus for me.

[Articulate_Ape]

There are others out there who are fiscally sane, and won't lead our country to ruin through their foreign policy though.

I would submit that much of our foreign policy is not fiscally sane. I'm just sayin'.

[swirling_vortex]

There are others out there who are fiscally sane, and won't lead our country to ruin through their foreign policy though.

Perhaps, but it still seems hypocritical to be on the side of small government and then support a buge military budget and Paul is the only one who's spoken about shutting down bases in places like Europe (which, as it stands is basically subsidizing their defense system so they can fund their various government programs). But I do agree with the other people here that the fanatics aren't correct either and there is certainly room for argument that having a worldwide intelligence operation has made us safer in being able to thwart attacks. Personally though, I've always focused a lot more on economic issues than foreign policy issues, so that would explain my reasoning.

The one candidate I'm disappointed who declined to run was Jim DeMint. Same with Paul Ryan. I really hope we're not stuck with another John McCain again.

[SaintLouieWoman]

Technically, he endorsed all 3rd party candidates, so it was more of a "Don't vote for the two-party system" gesture.

In the midst of a budget and a monetary crisis, I still feel Paul is the best candidate. None of the other candidates convey to me an understanding of how the operation of the Federal Reserve works and why the quantitative easing solutions won't work. He certainly doesn't take advice from the Keynesian dominated field in academics.

The problem is that we don't need another losing candidate. He has the Dr Nutz rap. I'll give him credit that he has an ardent group of followers, but there just aren't enough of them to get Obama out of office in 2012.

[SaintLouieWoman]

This may be the most amazing thing you will see today!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Here is the link to the web site of the company in the video.


3D Printers and Rapid Prototyping | Z Corporation