Background:
Why Ron Paul's Plan of Cutting 5 Departments/Cabinet-Posts Is Reasonable
There is allot of misunderstanding when it comes to Ron Paul, I'm not really surprised given the kind of coverage he's been getting over the last couple of years. So I'm his self-appointed defender for the stuff I agree with, which is more than I had initially realized... though my implementation ideas tend to be different especially since I view society & it's present & future differently than Ron Paul does.
Ron Paul Basically Called for Armed Revolution This Week by Kevin Drum
Way back in 2012, when he was running for president, Ron Paul seemed to some people like a breath of fresh air. Sure, maybe he was a bit of a crank, but at least he didn't sanitize his beliefs in order to avoid offending people. He said what he meant, and he meant what he said.
But, um, maybe not.
Me: I doubt that, but ok. You are entitled to your opinion.
At least, not based on this look into Paul's libertarian id, delivered last night at a campaign rally in Virginia for Ken Cuccinelli:
Me: On the one hand, GOP States listen to Fox News which is lying like crazy and painting a picture which isn't accurate (including leaving out GOP's self-sabotage). This creates an echo chamber where all this misinformation goes round & round. On the other hand, simple facts that many of us are familiar with haven't come to light publicly, so there is reason to mistrust the Government (especially given the last administration's un-prosecuted activities):"Jefferson obviously was a clear leader on the principle of nullification," the former Texas congressman said of the third president. "I’ve been working on the assumption that nullification is going to come. It’s going to be a de facto nullification. It’s ugly, but pretty soon things are going to get so bad that we’re just going to ignore the feds and live our own lives in our own states."
Related information:
Stories Media Has Blown
Is GOP A Hate Group?
Me: I don't get this, so I'm skipping it.....He tore into the Constitution’s 17th Amendment. Ratified in 1913, it’s the one that allows for the direct election of U.S. senators by popular vote. "That undermined the principle importance of the states," said Paul.
He criticized the 16th Amendment, which allowed the federal income tax. After the crowd chanted "End the Fed," Paul decried the printing of more money by the Federal Reserve. "We need someone to stand up to the authoritarians," he said. "They’re dictators."
Me: So many secret activities listed above and it's done by taxing us... to spy on us! Then people are killed using our tax money while not telling us who or why. I don't understand why your cool with that.
....He stressed that the constitutional "right to keep and bear arms" was not for hunting, but to allow rebellion against tyrannical governments. "The Second Amendment was not there so you could shoot rabbits," he said. "Right now today, we have a great threat to our liberties internally."
Me: He's right. Second amendment is not for hunting. We do have a threat to our Liberties internally (heard of the NSA?)... especially by the GOP Congress that has blocked economic improvement & opposed transparency or reversing the "Patriot" Act at every turn.
Related -
GOP - The War Party - Illustrated
Huh. I don't remember him being willing to deliver harangues quite like this during last year's debates. I guess he was holding back after all, just another mealy-mouthed politician unwilling to buck the polls and tell the people the raw truth.
Me: I'm thinking you are imagining stuff he did not say. A sort of psychological reaction based on fear caused by someone like Piers Morgan.
Gun Sense
This comes via Ed Kilgore, who asks, "Can you imagine a statewide Democratic candidate anywhere, much less in a 'purple state,' associating himself or herself so conspicuously with such ravings? No, you can't." This is what I was talking about yesterday: liberals don't have the equivalent of a tea party because there just aren't very many liberals who hold views this extreme—and the ones who do are pretty marginalized. In the Republican Party, however, this kind of thing barely even lifts any eyebrows.
Me: This I agree with. I can't imagine a Liberal doing anything dramatic or life-changing. When the election was stolen in 2000 by the Bush's, the Liberals did nothing. Same in 2004 (no investigation again). When Phil Donahue opposed the Iraq War on principle & got fired, Liberals did nothing (but acted vehemently when a situation came around with actual proof of WMD!). I can go on like this for a while, in short liberals don't like to rock the boat, if someone gets loud they get scared & disappear.
And the most remarkable part of all this is that the rest of us—centrists, liberals, non-insane Republicans, the press, etc.—are expected to shrug off this kind of thing as nothing more than a sort of boys-will-be-boys stemwinder, not to be taken seriously. Remarkable indeed.
Me: It might be. Ron Paul might be responding to Fox Business as if they are telling the truth. It's hard to trust the media when it's so obviously biased and lying on a regular basis. & they are pretending to be honourable in a skillful way on that channel.
Would love to continue this conversation. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment