[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qStGwXd30g]YouTube - Ron Paul "We're NOT Threatened Militarily By ANY Country AT ALL! IT'S ALL A POLITICAL GAME!" pt.2[/ame]
Who is this Ron Paul guy? I keep seeing people posting about him but he hasn't made his way into UK news yet.
Well there it is folks, I better go out and let everybody know.. Better disband our Military and sell all our weapons to China, since we don't need them, maybe Iraq wants to buy our WMD's!!
He's the Libertarian's Barak Obama. Talks a big game. Promises to be a different kind of politician. To his followers, he's a messiah. But he's really just another politician.
this is a false statement. barak obama is as statist as they come. no libertarian could be considered statist. and (at the risk of sound like im on his nutz) if he is "just another politician" then it should be pretty easy for you to find hundreds, if not thousands of politicians in state and federal government that share his views....... waiting.......
Did I say he politically agrees with Obama? No. To his followers, Ron Paul represents a new direction politically. That could be called change. To his followers, he's promises a brighter future. This gives his followers hope As a result, his followers worship him like a messiah - a prophet preaching about a new way politically and a brighter future if you just subscribe to his ideas. I'm sure if/when he gets elected President, his followers will give him a pass on broken promises too, just like Obama's followers. "Oh, he's just one man. He can't change the world by himself. It's [opposition party's] fault that, not his." In the end, he's just a political opportunist like the rest of them. He remains Republican so he can get all the perks of being a "Republican" (like campaign money and resources) while at the same time acting like he's better than the rest of the Republican party. He calls himself a Libertarian, but he doesn't affiliate himself with the Libertarian party because then the Republicans would run candidates against him, he'd lose the automatic, straight ticket Republican vote, he'd lose elections. And this isn't about being honest. It's about Ron Paul doing what's best for Ron Paul. Sure sounds like Obama circa 2007/2008 to me.
Paul was talking "a big game" when Obama was entering college. Paul has been educating people on both the libertarian philosophy and Austrian economics since Obama entered college. I'm a "follower" and he's not a messiah. Really, I think you're just butt hurt.
Maybe he's just that ambitious, or just smarter than the other gypsy politicians and knows how to secure his spot. I'm not crazy about him either, but if he can't out do Barack on such a hypnotizing marketing strategy to represent his true political party in the upcoming elections, then more power to him for manipulating the minds of those that don't want to take the time to listen by disguising himself in that red elephant custom.
So the fact that he's old makes my analogies not apply? And ask any Obama supporter, they'll tell you that they don't really think he's a messiah either. Here's something else that came to me. Ron Paul's campaign logo from the last election. rEVOLution. LOVE & REVOLUTION. Sounds a lot like HOPE & CHANGE to me. Empty platitudes. Or maybe he's just another Republican. Selling an agenda that keeps his followers sending in their donations and going to rallies and defending him to their friends and other internet forum members, when he knows that what he's proselytizing will never actually make it out of committee where it might offend his corporate masters. The fact that he is an effective snake-oil salesman doesn't impress me any more than if he were a more transparent snake-oil salesman.
Ron Paul is the libertarian Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel, etc. He is anti-establishment, anti-corporatism. Obama was always a corporatist, establishment tool. Ron Paul didn't make the "rEVOLution" logo, that was his supporters. All of Ron Paul's success is grassroots, he did nothing. The money bombs were grassroots, the blimp was grassroots, the logos, etc... Ron Paul has been in the shadows for 90% of his political career, and he has finally become recognized as a prophet for decrying keynesianism since the end of Bretton woods. Renaldo's nutjob conspiracy theory holds no weight.
Nope, that's not what I said or implied. Omg, they both ran for president and both had campaign slogans. They're exactly the same. EDIT: I do enjoy these paranoid delusions of yours, Renaldo. Please don't let me stop you from continuing to post them.
I sense a large amount of butthurt in this here thread. Eyo guys, Ron Paul is the Libertarian Barack Obama, just ignore the fact that he's been ideologically consistent for longer than most of us have been alive. Nothing to see here!
yup.. regardless of how many votes it may cost him, and how many debates may be "un-invited" to... can Obama say that? I understand that Obama didn't turn out like some had "hoped" (pun intended).. but he's a bigtime corporate/establishment politician, and that's what usually happens with these guys.
LMAO When Paul was explaining to whatever the fuck that guy's name is the idea of insurance... -- Setting the rules for these insurance companies, that isn't risk management. It becomes welfare. It becomes welfare? Sorry Dr. Paul we are out of time! -- Just terrible...
Oh yeah, thanks guys, I forgot that one too. If you criticize Obama on a leftie forum, scads of supporter will close their eyes, cover their ears, deny everything you say, call it a "conspiracy theory", and flame you too. His supporters thought he was not a corporate tool before he was elected President too. Media friendly to Obama sings his praises, he can do no worng. Just as media friendly to Paul (i.e. Alex Jones, Libertarian blogs) sing the praises of Ron Paul. He can do no wrong. Which brings me to another point. If you criticize Obama, his supporters deny it and say that there must be something mentally defective about you. With Obama, if you criticize him, you're a racist. With Paul, if you criticize him, your a Statist sheeple. In both cases, there's no room for ration disagreement. It's agree 100%, or you're mentally defective. Obama supporters talked about how his campaign was all grassroots too. Before being elected President, Obama's supporters thought he was idealogically consistent too. The fact that he's 20+ years younger than Paul is just a matter of age. I sense a lot of butthurt in this thread too. I must have hit a nerve.
The butthurt is over 9,000. Renaldo seems to forgot all the times people who are fans of Paul said they don't agree with him on everything (Evolution, Abortion, etc.), but support him because of his consistency. TROLL B GONE!
Obama supported war and corporatism before he was elected. For Paul to support war and corporatism after being elected would be a huge difference, and it would probably incite violent revolution... seeing as the elected President would be the most extravagant cointelpro agent ever conceived.
The reason Paul supporters are so responsive to Paul is because of consistency, not because of the rEVOLution signs, not because of the grassroots organizations, not because his support comes from the youth of the internet, not because of the money bombs... These things are the results of his support, not the cause of his support. With Obama and his supporters, HOPE and CHANGE are the cause of his support, not the result of his support. No one in the past 20 years has voted as consistently as Paul on the ideologies of small government. That is where his support comes from. Actions speak much louder than words. If you can't see that then there really is something mentally defective with you. Or you're a statist sheeple.