"So what exactly would you call Pat Buchanan? Sure, he challenges the status quo. So fucking what? Are you going to argue that i should listen to the Intelligent Design wankfucks because they "challenge the status quo" of the scientific community? Have you looked at the platforms of the Peace & Freedom and American Independent parties? Transcendental meditation vs. Jesus for everyone. Sign me up!"
I didn't say there aren't any delusional whackjobs running independently, I said that you shouldn't automatically dismiss people running independently as delusional whackjobs (you also shouldn't automatically accept people in the mainstream as non-delusional non-whackjobs).
"Sure it's delusional. Who's expecting a huge change? I mean, i'd like to go back to the America we had before Bush. Is that expecting a huge change? I don't think it's asking for much at all."
I'd call that expecting a huge change, yes. BushCo has done major damage to the Bill of Rights, destroyed the good will we enjoyed internationally (even after getting a big boost from 9/11), gathered a staggering amount of power to the executive branch, and taken our economy from good times to utter ruin. Do you really think Obama is going to undo all that? You're not going to get the kind of change it would take to go back to pre-Bush America without electing a President willing to give up a lot of his own office's power, just for starters... so YES, if you think electing a Democrat means going "back to the America we had before Bush", then you ARE expecting a huge change, and if that's not delusional as hell, it's being a lot dumber than I'd like to give you credit for. See Aesop's fable about King Stork and King Log, only in reverse.
"I'm tickled that you are inclined to listen to what the NAACP president has to say simply because it happens to support your candidate of choice, because i'm skeptical you'd give him the time of day otherwise (i know i wouldn't)."
I take the NAACP with a grain of salt when they're pushing their agenda, and I know that pushing their agenda often involves playing the race card and making racism allegations over nothing... but it does not serve that agenda to say that someone ISN'T a racist. In a nutshell, I trust the NAACP to tell me who isn't a racist even though I don't trust them to tell me who is one.
"Ron Paul is little more than the Howard Dean of `08. He's irrelevant, his integrity is vastly exaggerated, and in the end, libertarianism is just like every other political philosophy: full of promise, but bankrupt in practice. To paraphrase Pratchett, we don't have the wrong sort of politics, we have the wrong sort of people."
What you say about Ron Paul here isn't an argument, it's just an opinion. His integrity is vastly exaggerated? How so? There are many verifiable ways of demonstrating his integrity; do you know of any evidence that indicates he lacks integrity? 'Cause correct me if I'm wrong, but even with the entire machinery of the entrenched Neocons and their Democrat lapdog co-whores trying to smear Paul and keep him out of the debates, the only thing they could come up with were these thin allegations of racism that don't stand up under scrutiny. Do you know something they don't?
no subject
I didn't say there aren't any delusional whackjobs running independently, I said that you shouldn't automatically dismiss people running independently as delusional whackjobs (you also shouldn't automatically accept people in the mainstream as non-delusional non-whackjobs).
"Sure it's delusional. Who's expecting a huge change? I mean, i'd like to go back to the America we had before Bush. Is that expecting a huge change? I don't think it's asking for much at all."
I'd call that expecting a huge change, yes. BushCo has done major damage to the Bill of Rights, destroyed the good will we enjoyed internationally (even after getting a big boost from 9/11), gathered a staggering amount of power to the executive branch, and taken our economy from good times to utter ruin. Do you really think Obama is going to undo all that? You're not going to get the kind of change it would take to go back to pre-Bush America without electing a President willing to give up a lot of his own office's power, just for starters... so YES, if you think electing a Democrat means going "back to the America we had before Bush", then you ARE expecting a huge change, and if that's not delusional as hell, it's being a lot dumber than I'd like to give you credit for. See Aesop's fable about King Stork and King Log, only in reverse.
"I'm tickled that you are inclined to listen to what the NAACP president has to say simply because it happens to support your candidate of choice, because i'm skeptical you'd give him the time of day otherwise (i know i wouldn't)."
I take the NAACP with a grain of salt when they're pushing their agenda, and I know that pushing their agenda often involves playing the race card and making racism allegations over nothing... but it does not serve that agenda to say that someone ISN'T a racist. In a nutshell, I trust the NAACP to tell me who isn't a racist even though I don't trust them to tell me who is one.
"Ron Paul is little more than the Howard Dean of `08. He's irrelevant, his integrity is vastly exaggerated, and in the end, libertarianism is just like every other political philosophy: full of promise, but bankrupt in practice. To paraphrase Pratchett, we don't have the wrong sort of politics, we have the wrong sort of people."
What you say about Ron Paul here isn't an argument, it's just an opinion. His integrity is vastly exaggerated? How so? There are many verifiable ways of demonstrating his integrity; do you know of any evidence that indicates he lacks integrity? 'Cause correct me if I'm wrong, but even with the entire machinery of the entrenched Neocons and their Democrat lapdog co-whores trying to smear Paul and keep him out of the debates, the only thing they could come up with were these thin allegations of racism that don't stand up under scrutiny. Do you know something they don't?