«
»

A Rich Libertarian? NO…impossible!

In case you hadn’t heard, Ron Paul, thanks to Guy Fawkes, raised around $4 million yesterday in campaign funds on Nov 5th. Ohhh Ron Paul big support *magic hands*

I think Kevin Drum sums it up well:

But look: can we stop pretending to be political infants, even if we happen to be bored this week? It’s cheap and easy to take extreme, uncompromising positions when you have no actual chance of ever putting them into practice, so Paul’s extreme, uncompromising positions really don’t mean a thing. They don’t reflect either well or badly on him. They’re meaningless, and I wish grown adults who know better would stop pretending otherwise. Ditto for his “record breaking” fundraising day, which is just a function of (a) the growth of the internet as a political money machine and (b) the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian.

This entry was posted on November 7, 2007 at 1:16 pm and is filed under Politics with tags , , , , , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “A Rich Libertarian? NO…impossible!”

  1. Rich Paul Says:
    November 7, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    So basically, your position is that only those who support the status quo can be elected, so if a politician does not support the status quo, it doesn’t matter, since it’s irrelevant, and (by implication) politicians who do support the status quo are also irrelevant, since they are all espousing the same thing — the status quo. Therefore, all political positions are irrelevant.

    Well, you may be right. But I cannot opt out from government, so I must continue to do my best to defend myself from it. Until you come up with a better idea, that best is supporting Ron Paul. If it bothers you, ignore it. It’s all irrelevant anyway, right?

    Reply
  2. Phil Says:
    November 7, 2007 at 8:02 pm

    Rich Paul

    1. Not only is your comment non responsive to my, or Kevin’s, post; it doesn’t even have a potential link to my entry.

    2. If i were supporting the Status Quo then that would mean that I

    a) Support President Bush’s policies
    b) Plan on voting for the presidential candidate most similar to President Bush
    c) I am a republican

    considering that I’m neither A nor B nor C your argument seems rather foolish.

    3. The status quo sucking does not lead to the conclusion that Ron Paul should be the next President of the United States

    Also, I certainly hope you can construct a better argument for Ron Paul than you did in this comments section because its, a) lacking valid form and b) warrants and c) evidence

    try again next time?

    Reply

Leave a Reply