is when you unpeel the onion, you find you cannot achieve what may appear to be the same goal on the surface together.
Here's something from my journal about Ron Paul that applies to Rogan as well, I think:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=98951
Their ideas are stupid, and won't work in the real world. It's no wonder that most of his supporters are people who don't understand what it means to live as self-supporting members of society.
And there is his UN/NWO bullshit is just that. Bullshit. The UN has no way to affect the 2nd Amendment or any portion of the US Constitution. He is a paranoid, xenophobic crazy-man. aPaulogists are like cult members.
I actually kind of envy the aPaulogists their evidently bottomless stores of denial and ability to excuse EVERY glaring deficit in their completely twisted Great Leader. That kind of confidence is really pure in its way, even if it IS utterly blinkered and moronic and could get us all killed.
Paul is a wolf. The fact that he is the one trying to fit into the sheep suit isn't the entire problem, however; his platform is stupid and impractical.
What I find amusing is that some people support him on the grounds that the present system doesn't work. But it actually does, more or less. Libertarians want to exchange a system which actually works reasonably well for the majority for a system which doesn't work for anyone, except in a theoretical vacuum. It wants to let the market determine the economy without regulation. What's funny about that is the ones who are supporters of "OWS", yet support a guy who would remove all the socioeconomic checks and balances currently applied to the "1%".
Sure, he opposes military intervention in foreign wars, but not out of a sense of decency or pacifism; he would also withdraw from the UN (including humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, foreign aid would disappear, and if you think "unstable" regions are bad now, imagine what they would be like with the double-edged sword of multinational (read: US) corporate interests moving unchecked throughout the developing world AND an absence of monitored unilateral military involvement in those regions. Paul's position isn't one of altruism; it's one of isolationism. Not that I'm an advocate of First World military involvement in foreign problems, but look at what isolationism has netted in the past.
I don't know much about economics, but a return to the gold standard appears to me to be a likely trigger for severe deflation. Furthermore, while operating in gold might have worked 200 years ago, in a truly global economy, it doesn't.
He would remove social spending for almost everything, assuming the states would pick up the bill. First of all, where does he think the states will get the money for this? From the federal government, of course! So what's changed?
He claims to want to lower tuition, but what he wants to do is actually remove government control of tuition, and (wait for it) let the private sector deal with it. Do you actually believe that will result in lower education costs? Really?
None of us have time to cover point for point why Paul's selective and obsolete vision of a libertarian utopia won't work.
Let's just say it is the perpetual motion machine of political dogma; if it worked it would be really impressive and everyone would be happy, but it doesn't.
And, they have a paranoid nutter at the helm. Better luck next time.
= new reply since forum marked as read
