I doubt it'll make much of a difference, but let's at least try flapping our arms a little before we hit bottom. What can it hurt?I LOL'd. Then I cried.
Claire Wolfe has linked to some evidence in Dr. Paul's favor, which makes me feel a bit better about him. I don't mind the military, foreign aid and pot-legalizing stuff (the drug war is a particular drain on both finances and civil society, the same distorting influence as Prohibition, only for a lot longer). I'm sure not seeing anyone else I could in conscience vote for.
12 comments:
I'm just going to beat my head against the floor until it all goes away.
My wife says that she could support Paul "if he extended his libertarianism to women's bodies."
Funny contradiction, that.
WV: ODDLYI All right, it's oddlyi paradoxical.
Ron Paul may be the none-of-the-above vote that L. Neil Smith is so fond of.
I'll be voting for Gary Johnson. Nearly* all the good Wookieness of Ron Paul, without the nuttiness.
And maybe a good sized flock of people "defecting" to the Libertarian Party will be enough to give the Republicans the whack upside the head with a clue-by-four that they so desperately need.
* I dislike his stance on abortion. But I also realize that the topic is essentially dead from a legal standpoint, and his stance is probably the most practical balance from a political viewpoint. I can live with it as part of the package given his other positions.
Nice dream, Jake, but nothing's going to wake the R's up. Not for naught is it called the Stupid Party in some circles.
Roberta, I'm honestly amazed that you would consider voting for Ron Paul. He's a nut case, made worse by the fact that he seems to be turning senile as well. His foreign policy would be a total disaster, and his domestic policies not much better. Large-L Libertarianism is simply not workable on a large scale. If Paul really got his way, the immediate trillion-dollar budget cut and all that, it would finishing the job of wrecking the US economy. After five years of the Bitch Princess and Filthy Harry setting the budget, so much of the US economy depends on government spending now that an abrupt withdrawal of that money flow would cause .. well, withdrawal. Just like a meth or coke addict trying to stop cold-turkey.
(No, I don't have a better idea. I myself believe that the US budget/economic situation is now irretrievable. That doesn't mean I see anything admirable about a policy that would undoubtedly bring the crash much faster and make it much worse than it has to be.)
WW, did you read the Tam quote?
And WW, the last time anything even close to "large-L Libertarianism" got tried, we had an Industrial Revolution. What's Statism given us? Some nasty Depressions and Recessions and a part-time job as World Policeman? And *that,* you think works better?
As I said at Tam's, my bowcaster is clean and my conscience is clear. I'm with the wookie.
"Nice dream, Jake, but nothing's going to wake the R's up. Not for naught is it called the Stupid Party in some circles."
If that's truly the case, then leaving becomes all that more imperative. If the party can't learn, it deserves to collapse under the weight of its own idiocy, and the faster it gets taken out of the way, the better.
If people keep voting for the Stupid Party's candidate for no reason other than "we have to get [$DEMOCRAT] out" it does nothing but prolong and encourage the idiocy.
Or, to paraphrase Tam, if we keep voting for the syphilitic camel, pretty soon all they're going to offer us is syphilitic camels.
Looking at the current field, we're pretty much there already.
WV: cheworba - Okay, I think I've found my Wookie name. (And I almost didn't post this follow-up comment, but there's no way I could waste that word verification given the topic of this post.)
Roberta,
"And WW, the last time anything even close to "large-L Libertarianism" got tried, we had an Industrial Revolution."
We must be using the term 'Libertarianism' to refer to two very different things.
And yes, I did read Tam's post. I read her blog as often as I read yours. And I agree that it's a measure of how awful the rest of the Republican field is, that a moonbat like RP could be considered a viable candidate.
That doesn't mean I like it when I see people who I thought were pretty smart and levelheaded talking about voting for him.
WW: What, you'd rather Romney? Santorum?
I do not like "social conservatives." They're meddlers. And I don't like the drug war or the U.S. playing policeman, picking some pestilential hellhole to go kick in doors, usually one we know we can beat up while worse bastards get a pass 'cos a war with them would be a real war.
Bush was only a little better than his Dem opponents. Obama vs. Mitt is like running one chess king against another: same guy, different paint job. Him and the rest of the GOP field are worse than same-old, same-old: they're faded imitations of the same old tired GOP positions that in practice barely differ from the Democrats: more crony capitalism, bailouts for big business and some deck-chair rearranging as a sop to what they imagine to be their base.
Post a Comment