This article is typical of the latest assault on Ron Paul supporters coming from neocon and GOP loyalists. Emboldened by Rand Paul’s recent defection to the Romney camp, they are coming in for the killing blow. Unfortunately, many Paul supporters, worn out from the months of assault, are starting to crack. They are starting to waver. They are starting to consider the benefits of appeasement.
“Evolution not revolution” is what Glenn Beck recently said on his radio show. Sure, you may be disappointed you can’t get Ron Paul into the White House, but just stick with Mitt Romney and we’ll change things a little at a time. Incrementally. It’ll be fine. After all, he’s right about a lot of things, isn’t he? He’s not a Communist like Obama, right? You don’t want another four years of Obama do you?
Let me ask the Glenn Becks of the world. For what reason should I believe that Mitt Romney represents an “evolution” towards the principles that Ron Paul espouses. On what issues does Romney substantially agree with Ron Paul? It seems to me that on every major issue, Romney actually agrees with someone we had eight years ago, George W. Bush. Did the Bush presidency “evolve” us towards greater freedom? Did electing a neocon in 2000 (complete with a GOP dominated House and Senate) get us closer to, or farther away from the principles of Ron Paul?
Do not buy into these lies. Romney does NOT represent a slower path towards the same ends as Ron Paul. He represents a slower path towards the same ends as Barack Obama. He is in favor of state run medical care. He believes that government stimulus is necessary to keep the economy going. He is a complete believer in Keynesianism. The “conservative” media wants you to believe that the guy who favors an income tax of 35% (Romney) is somehow closer to Ron Paul (who favors a 0% income tax) than he is to Barack Obama (who favors a 40% income tax).
Stand up to this nonsense. Refuse to be suckered in by the appeasement platform of libertarians in name only. If Ron Paul doesn’t run as an independent, either vote for Gary Johnson, or write him in. Mitt Romney is NOT on our side.
You want a revolution? You tear down the the 200+ years of political history we have here in America. You abolish the two party system we have in place and stop caring about labels like liberal and conservative. Nothing work 100% of the time. There are times when laissez-faire economics work and there are times when you need to be more hands on. Flexibility and adaptation.
Finally, you purge everyone from office. Whatever they're doing, it isn't working. And you ban lawyers from running for political office, and instead elect scientists, engineers and other specialists. That's a revolution
--
"One of these days, I'm gonna find a loophole my friend." - Man in Black
The problem with a Romney presidency is that all the bad establishment stuff he will do will be filed under "bad republican president", like all the stuff Bush did, so that when the next election comes around, people will blindly vote for the establishment democrat. If Obama stays president, then there really won't be a way to scapegoat the bad establishment stuff for the next election, so next time we can actually talk about some serious issues that need addressing. THAT is evolution. Obama 2012.
-- _foolmo_ 'he says listen to my story this maybe are last chance' - ertyu quoting Tidus
Stand up to this nonsense. Refuse to be suckered in by the appeasement platform of libertarians in name only. If Ron Paul doesn’t run as an independent, either vote for Gary Johnson, or write him in. Mitt Romney is NOT on our side.
Wouldn't it be better to support Gary Johnson anyway? Didn't Ron Paul endorse him? Having all the libertarians vote for the Libertarian candidate will be more effective them having them all write-in their favorite Libertarian. Let's be honest here, neither guy is winning the election so the important part is to support the movement more than the candidate.
At least that is my view.
-- (Maniac64 at work) All the proteins, vitamins, and carbs of your grandma's best turkey dinner, plus 15% alcohol.
Glenn Beck is Stephen Colbert except his audience is too stupid to get the joke. Nothing he says should be taken remotely seriously, but it is anyway, and it's one of the sadder reflections on American society
--
We are thought, and reality, and concept, and the unimaginable
Glenn Beck is Stephen Colbert except his audience is too stupid to get the joke. Nothing he says should be taken remotely seriously, but it is anyway, and it's one of the sadder reflections on American society
This is completely untrue BTW. Someone can be wrong without being intentionally deceiving people.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
You know what Glenn Beck's go to response is whenever he's called out on his **** stirring off-camera (and this has been documented several times)? "It's a show."
*Glenn Beck* is well aware that he shouldn't be taken seriously, but he is anyway, and it's made him into the lowest kind of celebrity you can manage
--
We are thought, and reality, and concept, and the unimaginable
When he gets "called out" for something that is an obviously exaggerated, completely over the top COMEDY bit, yeah, he'll respond with the completely true fact that he was just trying to entertain.
However, more often than not, he's engaging in pretty serious and constructive discussion. I'd say "his listeners are smart enough to know the difference" but that implies that knowing the difference is actually hard when it's actually incredibly obvious. The more accurate statement would be that leftist groups willfully ignore the difference in a pathetic attempt to smear him.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I'd say "his listeners are smart enough to know the difference" but that implies that knowing the difference is actually hard when it's actually incredibly obvious.
I'd say the vast majority of liberals and conservatives have trouble telling the difference.
the whole reason politics is pretty much a joke is that the vast majority of the electorate doesn't put enough effort into thinking through what politicians and pundits say. this isn't a liberal or conservative problem. it's everyone.
From: SmartMuffin | #003 You don't have to "abolish" the two party system. It exists because we allow it to exist.
Well, let's be far, it also exists because it's a concept shoved down our throats from the day we are old enough to understand what voting is supposed to mean.
It's telling that the majority of people disillusioned with Democrats and Republicans opt to stop voting altogether instead of voting for somebody else.
-- I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo [NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]
here's the thing, though, muffin. you and I? we're pretty smart and think things through. we obviously come to different conclusions almost all the time, but that is beside the point.
the average person rarely tries to apply logic to anything they hear.
I'm not trying to criticize glenn beck or how well he makes it obvious; I'm just saying you overestimate the intelligence of the electorate
And I'd say you're playing into the most basic "liberal elitist" stereotypes that exist! You don't have to have a PHD to be able to tell when someone is being sarcastic and when they are being sincere.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
eh I'm not abandoning my opinion just because it may be viewed as stereotypical liberal. I'm not elitest because I don't think intelligent people are inherently better than less intelligent people.
I'm also not saying that the average person can't make that distinction, just that they don't. and I'm really not talking about Glenn beck joking or not.
I'm just saying that the vast majority of what politicians (and pundits) say is clearly designed to manipulate someone or other. a few people seem genuine (like ron paul), but most are trying to decieve the public in some way.
I think this is probably equally true of republicans and democrats. is that stereotypically liberal?
I am being elitist when I say that intelligent people are better than less intelligent people.
Maybe we should make them all wear something attached to their clothing so we'll know who they are and to avoid them, right?
Only if people who think Glenn Beck isn't all an act get the same treatment. Then again it usually isn't hard to spot those people out from everyone else anyway, nevermind.
--
B8 resident lurker for 5 errrrr 6 years Currently Playing: Mass Effect, Assassins Creed 2 (just got a 360)
and I'm really not talking about Glenn beck joking or not.
Well that's exactly what I was talking about.
I think this is probably equally true of republicans and democrats. is that stereotypically liberal?
Generally, kinda yeah. The notion that political issues are just so complex that only the incredibly educated will be able to properly understand them is pretty popular among leftists, and not popular at all among conservatives. I'd say that the problem we have in America isn't an intelligence deficit, it's a caring deficit. People aren't "too stupid" to understand the issues, they just don't bother learning the issues because they're too distracted with reality TV and such things. I know PLENTY of people who are just as smart as me who know nothing about politics because they don't bother. The reason I can intelligently discuss these issues with you isn't because I was born a genius and it isn't because I have some fancy degree (I don't) but it's because I make the effort. I listen to Glenn Beck and Dennis Prager and Adam Kokesh. I read articles online. I read books by Rothbard and Mises and I read history and I watch educational TV shows and documentaries.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
If you vote without bothering to do research, then yes you are stupid or less intelligent. You may still be intelligent enough to understand the issues, but if you fail to comprehend them you are doing a disservice by voting and that is stupid
--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png Mr Caffeine? He was awesome. - Ayuyu
The reason I can intelligently discuss these issues with you isn't because I was born a genius and it isn't because I have some fancy degree (I don't) but it's because I make the effort.
It's because you're not stupid and you make an effort. Not stupid applies to a majority of the population, makes an effort to a minority. People who have both represent a substantial minority.
However, the genius of large groups making decisions is that it doesn't matter how stupid people vote, as long as their votes are random. It will cancel out. But if they are being deceived by propaganda, then their votes are no longer random, and can hurt. So if you have done absolutely zero research and don't know who's on the ballot- vote or don't vote, you're not doing or harming your civic duty by doing so. But if you only know about candidates through propaganda, stay away from the polls.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
The one thing that the lefty propaganda and the neocon propaganda can agree upon is that libertarians are evil, dangerous people, and that all third party or independent candidates are crazy and terrible and voting for them is a complete waste of time that nobody should ever bother to engage in.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
and I'm really not talking about Glenn beck joking or not.
Well that's exactly what I was talking about.
I think this is probably equally true of republicans and democrats. is that stereotypically liberal?
Generally, kinda yeah. The notion that political issues are just so complex that only the incredibly educated will be able to properly understand them is pretty popular among leftists, and not popular at all among conservatives. I'd say that the problem we have in America isn't an intelligence deficit, it's a caring deficit. People aren't "too stupid" to understand the issues, they just don't bother learning the issues because they're too distracted with reality TV and such things. I know PLENTY of people who are just as smart as me who know nothing about politics because they don't bother. The reason I can intelligently discuss these issues with you isn't because I was born a genius and it isn't because I have some fancy degree (I don't) but it's because I make the effort. I listen to Glenn Beck and Dennis Prager and Adam Kokesh. I read articles online. I read books by Rothbard and Mises and I read history and I watch educational TV shows and documentaries.
arg! this is exactly what I'm trying to argue! I'm not saying that politics is difficult or that people are generally too stupid for it. I'm just saying the average person does not put forth the effort to think throughwhat politicians and pundits say, and since the politicians and pundits know this, they use it to mislead people.
To give my opinion on the topic: Voting for Romney isn't appeasement. It's not appeasement because we're not giving up anything. No one is required to pledge votes for mainstream Republicans in future elections or anything. Only Romney or Obama will be elected this year, so a vote for anyone else is worthless.
On another note, libertarians are way too small a group to even start thinking about using the term "libertarians in name only." IMO "republicans in name only" was a terrible idea for the GOP too, because the whole point of it is to drive people out. You use this kind of thing when you are trying to force people out, like when the Communist elite wanted to consolidate its power and needed to get rid of other party members from the days of the revolution. You don't do this when you are trying to win more people to your party.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: red sox 777 | #046 To give my opinion on the topic: Voting for Romney isn't appeasement. It's not appeasement because we're not giving up anything. No one is required to pledge votes for mainstream Republicans in future elections or anything. Only Romney or Obama will be elected this year, so a vote for anyone else is worthless.
On another note, libertarians are way too small a group to even start thinking about using the term "libertarians in name only." IMO "republicans in name only" was a terrible idea for the GOP too, because the whole point of it is to drive people out. You use this kind of thing when you are trying to force people out, like when the Communist elite wanted to consolidate its power and needed to get rid of other party members from the days of the revolution. You don't do this when you are trying to win more people to your party. Honestly, I am more disturbed by this thought process that compromise is a terrible thing than anything else going on in this country. This is why I hate the tea party. Not because theyre racist or poor or whatever other reasons people have conjured to hate them. I hate them because they are actively sabotaging the process like a petulant 5 year old child who didnt get his way. I mean would ANYONE be better off if the debt ceiling didnt get raised? Will this country really be better off if we fall off the financial cliff in January? Do their constituents even understand thats what theyre elected officials are doing? But these things are in their ideals and they refuse to meet anyone halfway, so here we are.
This country was FOUNDED on compromise. Its the only way ANYTHING and I mean anything can ever get done. Even without money in politics and the like, whens the last time any 400 people you knew all agreed about something?
--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png The one and only Underdog Millionaire and UCA CORPORATE Champion
Guys, you can still write in Ron Paul if that's who you really want. I was with Gary Johnson from the beginning, I'm not gonna let you move in on my man! >_>