I will give him credit for one thing..the political parties were much different back then. The democrats of today are nothing like the democrats of 100 years ago. Those of today are way more socialist in thinking.
the republicans wanted to stop slavery. The democrats didnt want to abolish slavery. Republicans where mostly educated people and town folks. Democrats where rednecks and hillbilies. 150 years later its the exact opposite. Political ideologies change, and all ideologies mean diffrent things in diffrent nations. The socialist party of Sweden are the ones wanting to keep the system, the conservatives and liberals want to change evereything. Thats the exact opposite of conservatism. Todays parties where created in a diffrent world, they just keep the names not the system.
What do you find crazy about him? I think he is spot on in most of his analysis. Libertarian views are looking like a good alternative to the same old 2 party crap we have had forever.
I was being sarcastic, because so many republicans are calling Ron Paul a nut and unelectable. I'm just showing them some things their hero said.
Your promotion of Ron Paul is shallow and empty. You simply support him because of his trutherism. You supported Chavez nationalizing industry in another thread; therefore Paul's small government platform is not what you agree with him on. The only thing left is his trutherism.
He is a nut and he is unelectable. Because of his kooky conspiracy beliefs. Anyone can stand up and say they are for something. As I've pointed out time and again, and has Lorien proven from your very own posts, it's not what he stands for that excites moonbats, it's his 9/11 conspiracy position. Surely you don't think people can't see that, Briant? Most people here, that can see such, have a higher IQ than those who frequent websites with "prison" in the url. Ronald Regan was "the man." He's left a legacy and a gold standard that any presidential contender, republican or democrat, would have a hard time matching. He was arguably one the greatest presidents and raised the bar.
Ron Paul is opposed to a large federal government going beyond its mandate. If the people of California want medicinal marijuana, the DEA doesn't need to get involved, if they want to have lavish welfare benefits for state residents, the federal government doesn't need to be involved, etc. What conspiracy?
Yes, keep repeating Briant. We all know that ONE issue, conspiratorial moonbatism, that is his mystical draw to the young angry white male crowd.
But i've noticed people say moonbat etc., like O'Reilly does to his "guests," but I can't see the proof
That's very true GT. You and Bill O'Reilly for starters. EDIT: Damn dude you slipped over the 10k mark silently. Did you get a carriage clock for your fantastic achievement of only posting superb high quality posts?
So you admit you are simply expressing your cognitive dissonance here? Chavez is overstepping his government's mandate by nationalizing an entire industry, threatening to do others as well - the steel industry and others. And is continuing to nationalize. You either support small government or you do not. It is not rational to support Paul on one hand (as a small government guy) then Chavez on the other hand (as a big government guy). So analyze their similarities. Ron Paul - truther. Chavez - truther. I sense a common thread.
Chavez is not going to let outside interest dictact his nation's oil policy. That what really bothers people. whatever else he does, he's doing that right. As for Paul, again you keep saying he's a "truther," btw, that's a nice little Orwellian term (like the truth is bad?), when no one he has been able to link him to any 9/11 conspiracy theory. BTW, here's that's my last red rep (on my prevent abuse of the rep system thread). I guess I'm doing someting right--and will keep doing it no matter what some neofascist(s) think.
9/11 nutjobs like to be called "truthers". I like it to, because it implies the opposite. They are full of truthiness. We've already talked about his links to the truthers - that he wants another investigation into 9/11, gives time to the 9/11 truth groups, etc. You can whip out "orwellian" all you want; but he has to be defended from these ties. Simple. See. Here you go again. Holding 2 opposing views. You claim Chavez is doing something right. Which involves steeling assets/money/contracts from companies that were legally operating in Venezuela. He's also planning to nationalize steel and the banks. Is this right too? Nationalizing industry is not under governmental pervue before Chavez; shouldn't you logically oppose that if you believe in small government? Just face reality; that your support of Paul and your support of Chavez stems, not from a logical stance, but from truthiness.
Alright, so maybe he wants another investigation into 9/11, but does that make him crazy? I mean listen to what he has to say, he makes a lot of valid arguments and I think his heart is in the right place. And I'm not talking about 9/11 when I say that, I'm talking about his stance on US foreign policy, US immigration, protecting American workers, and etc. PS: I know I'm not American, but American politics has always interested me.
Chavez should do whatever he can to keep the neocolonialists from robbing his country. I don't have to be his buddy to see that much. Again, and I don't know how many times I've said this now, but Ron Paul has no connection to any 9/11 conspiracy theories.