The Paul File

[Tiassa]

The Pauline Evangelism in the Twenty-First Century

It took two poeple at MSNBC to write the following story, reproduced in its entirety:

Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul says he will not run for reelection for his House seat. He will, instead, focus on his candidacy for the presidency.

"Big news!" Paul exclaimed. "I have decided not to seek re-election for my House seat in 2012 and will focus all of my energy winning the presidency. My hometown newspaper, 'The Facts' will be running the exclusive story very shortly."

(O'Donnell and Montanaro)​

I guess each of them took a paragraph, or something.

Paul supporters are weeping at the news, but there is some question among critics about whether the move was prompted by redistricting.

Still, though, Saint Ron of Texas is hoping to be sworn into the White House at age seventy-seven. And the Man Who Can Do No Wrong placed sixth between Texas Governor Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in a survey of Iowa Republican Caucus voters. His numbers outside the caucus are a little better than the meager five percent he won in the Iowa Republican magazine survey; Paul got fourteen percent, one of three official candidates to break double-digits, to snare third place. Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann won the American Research Group poll, with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney running a close second. Rep. Paul scored third, with the undeclared former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, grabbing fourth place.

In May, Paul Constant summed up Ron Paul's candidacy as follows:

Where did this guy come from?

He represents Texas in the House of Representatives.

What's his problem?

He's a hardcore libertarian who wants the government to basically wither up and die, but he also believes it's well within the government's rights to control a woman's body. His followers are a ragtag group of 9/11 truthers, white supremacists, and Ayn Rand freaks.

Is he serious?

And how. He might even believe he's the messiah at this point, thanks to the thunderous adulation of his creepy troll-horde. The scary thing is, this could be Ron Paul's time. The teabaggers could climb on board his crazy train if DeMint doesn't run, and he might just wind up giving the front-runner a real scare. But it's okay: The Republican establishment must have some sort of a plan for the likely occasion of their teabagger Frankenstein's monster going out of control and trying to seize the party, right? I mean, they must have seen that coming when they fomented the armies of crazies around the country two years ago, right? Um, right?​

Illustration by Danny Schwartz.​

It's hardly a kind outlook on Rep. Paul, but that's the thing. Outside his bloc of well-defined, dedicated followers there just doesn't seem to be much support. Up here the kindliest outlooks among infidels involve gentle suggestions of an old man past his prime, but don't specifically invoke the word "senility". Less generous views of the eternally damned who just won't support Ron Paul usually involve some combination of the words "crazy" and "asshole".

Part of Constant's vicious summary does transcend the humorous egotism of such pure editorial rage: I mean, they must have seen that coming when they fomented the armies of crazies around the country two years ago, right?

In the 1990s, Ron Paul received some political benefit from a newsletter published in his name that tended toward, well, the bigoted. And while the Man Who Can Do No Wrong defended himself by saying he was not a racist, he seemed happy enough to reap the votes brought in by the racist fringe. There is a reason why Ron Paul won the endorsement of white supremacists in 2007.

In his defense, Paul supporters argue that the newsletters, often presented as if they came from the congressman's desk, and often published by a company he owned a stake in, were written without his oversight, and therefore he didn't know what was in them. Plausible deniability. We know, then, what we can expect from Ron Paul as president. So much for personal accountability. All he ever did was blindly reap a bitter harvest. What his people do in his name is not his problem, but only his profit.
____________________

Notes:

O'Donnell, Kelly and Domenico Montanara. "Ron Paul not running for reelection; will 'focus' on presidential race". First Read. July 12, 2011. FirstRead.MSNBC.com. July 12, 2011. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...or-reelection-will-focus-on-presidential-race

BeaReady. "*BREAKING* Ron Paul Will Not Seek Congressional Term in 2012". The Daily Paul. July 12, 2011. DailyPaul.com. July 12, 2011. http://www.dailypaul.com/170433/breaking-ron-paul-wont-seek-congressional-term-in-2012

Tung, Sarah. "Rick Perry fifth, Ron Paul sixth in presidential poll with Iowa caucus goers". Texas on the Potomac. July 12, 2011. Blog.Chron.com. July 12, 2011. http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/201...-in-presidential-poll-with-iowa-caucus-goers/

Haberman, Maggie. "Michele Bachmann on top in new Iowa poll". Politico. July 12, 2011. Politico.com. July 12, 2011. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58816.html

Constant, Paul. "Are They Serious?" The Stranger. May 24, 2011. TheStranger.com. July 12, 2011. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/are-they-serious/Content?oid=8309380

Todd, Brian. "Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays". CNN. January 10, 2008. Articles.CNN.com. July 12, 2011. http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites

 

[Billy T]

Ron Paul has free web site

Visit http://www.makeschiffhappen.com/ (a disguised Ron Paul web site.)

Set up and paid for by Peter Schiff. We live in "interesting times" do we not?

 

[The Esotericist]

He's a hardcore libertarian who wants the government to basically wither up and die, but he also believes it's well within the government's rights to control a woman's body. His followers are a ragtag group of 9/11 truthers, white supremacists, and Ayn Rand freaks.

Is he serious?

And how. He might even believe he's the messiah at this point, thanks to the thunderous adulation of his creepy troll-horde. The scary thing is, this could be Ron Paul's time. The teabaggers could climb on board his crazy train if DeMint doesn't run, and he might just wind up giving the front-runner a real scare. But it's okay: The Republican establishment must have some sort of a plan for the likely occasion of their teabagger Frankenstein's monster going out of control and trying to seize the party, right? I mean, they must have seen that coming when they fomented the armies of crazies around the country two years ago, right? Um, right?[/font][/indent]

It's hardly a kind outlook on Rep. Paul, but that's the thing. Outside his bloc of well-defined, dedicated followers there just doesn't seem to be much support. Up here the kindliest outlooks among infidels involve gentle suggestions of an old man past his prime, but don't specifically invoke the word "senility". Less generous views of the eternally damned who just won't support Ron Paul usually involve some combination of the words "crazy" and "asshole".

Part of Constant's vicious summary does transcend the humorous egotism of such pure editorial rage: I mean, they must have seen that coming when they fomented the armies of crazies around the country two years ago, right?

In the 1990s, Ron Paul received some political benefit from a newsletter published in his name that tended toward, well, the bigoted. And while the Man Who Can Do No Wrong defended himself by saying he was not a racist, he seemed happy enough to reap the votes brought in by the racist fringe. There is a reason why Ron Paul won the endorsement of white supremacists in 2007.

Ugh. What a bunch of tripe. When I first joined here, I respected you because you were intelligent and didn't use insulting language and emotional appeals. What happened to logic? What happened to reason? What happened to thinking for yourself?

First off, Mr. Paul is OLD, he is a product of his time, and, I'll admit, he is a tad prejudiced, frightened, and his thinking is a little unenlightened. That being said, he is the most honorable, uncorrupted politician running for president, including the current president. If you are going to attack him for these trivialities, you had best hold the President up to the same standards, which I highly doubt you would.

He does not want the government to vanish, what an exaggeration (in fact, I think that is his one of his biggest flaws.) He wants it to be reigned in to it's constitutionally defined limits. It is out of control. It is not only as big as it is to serve the people, it is as big as it is to serve itself, the interests of the corporate state, the military industrial complex, and so it can control the people. He, like many of us, are tired of the increasing size of the police state, we just want our liberties back.

He doesn't believe it's the governments right to control anyone's body. He just believes that life begins at conception, and that it should be protected as such. This is an age old debate. I happen to agree with him there. However, I know that many disagree, and I am not willing to force my views on others. He believes that there is no mandate in the constitution that gives the federal government the right to either make abortion legal or illegal. It is an issue that should be settled in the states. If you feel it is a woman's choice, move to a state where the people feel the same as you. If you feel that life begins at conception, move to a state where people feel the same as you. Let's stop this stupid debate already. It is not the job of the federal government to sort this out. Why do some states have to force their views on others? I think as a nation we have forgotten that we are a republic, not a democracy. I hate the tyranny of the majority.

In regard to the nature of his supporters, whether they be people who suspect what the truth is behind the Kennedy assassination, or 9/11, or any number or government cover-ups, so what? I don't see how this is relevant to his candidacy. It seems to me like a smear campaign, and attempt to cast dispersion upon the man. The media are the villains here. We all know that in these events, the official story leaves many questions unanswered. People who traditionally distrust government will naturally gravitate to the most trustworthy, honest, and vocal candidate that is critical of government, corporate, media and institutional malfeasance. Hmmmm. . . I wonder who that could be?

Ayn Rand freaks? Are you serious? There is a difference between an economic system and the financial system. The financial system is corrupt, broken and doomed. We have discussed, dissected, and gone over it at length here in many threads and forums here at Sciforums. You either have your head in the sand or are in denial if you can't see it or don't know it. It needs to be dismantled and replaced with something sound and tenable. . . your "living standard" be damned. For the good of the country and the world. The alternative is a police state or a major war.



I think you are much to harsh on him when you judge him to be "bigoted" or a "racist."
I read this quote. .

"The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

I see nothing racist about it. I lived in a 90% black/mexican community. The kids came by and played with my 3DO video game system, they told me as much. I was broken in and robbed twice, once by one of them that told my he was my friend. When I asked him why he did it, that was the reason he told me he did it; because I had a great job that my white background and education enabled me to purchase it. I had to admit. . . he was right. What hope did he have of getting out of his circumstances? If he didn't remain in the gang he was in, his very life would be in danger. His gang activities left little time for school work in the shitty public school he was in, and he had very little hope of ever getting into college, and thus getting the job that I had, delivering the items to the houses in HIS community. It was pretty much bullshit. lol

We remained friends. Luckily 3DO's were on clearance and I got another one and put bars on my windows. Whole other story.

Point is, you can't paint a picture however you want when you have an agenda to sell.

Obama is a Black Nationalist. . . he hates conservatives whites and their freedom of speech. How much press coverage does that get?

Illustration: Presidential seal​

KUHNER: Obama’s black nationalism
President’s Easter was worship of resentment, not resurrection

Is President Obama a black nationalist? This goes to the heart of his presidency - and partly explains why Mr. Obama is losing the broad middle of America. On Easter, Mr. Obama and his family attended Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington. The liberal press corps made much of the fact that the church was founded in 1863 by freed slaves. Yet the church’s pastor, the Rev. Wallace Charles Smith, is a race-baiting black nationalist. He is a more polished version of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a longtime pastor of Mr. Obama‘s.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/26/obamas-black-nationalism/?page=1

Ron Paul has been extremely open and vocal about his views. Likewise, we also know a great deal about him, his history, and where he came from. So it is really easy to distort in the media, his history, or the views associated with those who support him, if you don't like his political positions. Frankly, I don't like negative campaigning. It is awfully low to start this early, and it says something, really, about the character of a man when he posts something like this, so early in a campaign, about someone who has done so much good for the country, and who has warned the people so often, so early, of the malfeasance of wall-street, the FED, and the mismanaged and lost opportunities congress has had in oversight.

And yet. . . the media, government, the Obama campaign, has gone to terrific lengths to conceal, obfuscate anything about his history, his actual beliefs, his substantial record, education, all of it, from the American people, before he ran. And even now that he is in office, he has been even more secretive, and with held more, and made more things top secret than even W. did. How strange? Never thought anyone could be more tyrannical than Bush, but he manages to do it, but with a more accommodating happier face.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Could it be that in times when every issue is split in two opposite "truths" we are forced to make a choice based on feeling.
racism, abortion, feminism, economy, atheism, evolution, religions...you name it.
Add there information overflow and propaganda... I´m perplexed.
Paul certainly scares some people for a man who time and time again defends the very same thing, constitution, which is said to be the corner stone of the so called free west.
Hegelian dialectic ?

 

[Tiassa]

Meanwhile, in Another Realm of the Universe, Known as "Reality"

Point is, you can't paint a picture however you want when you have an agenda to sell.

Uh-huh.

Obama is a Black Nationalist. . . he hates conservatives whites and their freedom of speech. How much press coverage does that get?

I'm sorry, you were saying something about selling excrement an agenda?

Some 30 people in the back room of Piecora's are heckling a man for claiming that the World Trade Center collapsed because planes piloted by Al Qaeda crashed into them. A ponytailed man shouts, "Are you telling us that you believe the government's story of 9/11?" Someone else interjects, "You believe these 'experts'? Who are your 'experts'? Who's paying them?" Then a vest-wearing older woman who identifies herself as "a scientist" stands up and bellows, "What are your credentials? What are your credentials? You! You! What are your credentials? I want to know!"

It's the day after the 10th anniversary of 9/11, and this is the monthly Seattle meeting of Campaign for Liberty (C4L), a Virginia-based 501(c)(4) lobbying organization that "neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office." Immediately following the C4L meeting, the King County Ron Paul 2012 organization—a group with the same organizers and 24 of the same members—will meet to discuss their plans for getting Ron Paul elected president of the United States. For now, they are barely giving their attention to a rumpled man who keeps digging through the dense forest of files on his laptop in a futile effort to dissuade them from conspiracy theories. Images of the Twin Towers falling over and over again are projected onto a large screen while people munch on their pizza and grumble ....

.... So what kind of person becomes an avid Ron Paul follower? The kind of person who is a 9/11 Truther ....

.... Truther thought tends to resemble Zeno's arrow paradox: There is no idea so simple that you can't complicate it by breaking it in half. We all saw planes smash into those buildings. Therefore, the planes must not have caused the collapse. Clearly, the collapse must have been caused by explosives implanted in the buildings by black ops teams beforehand. And Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks, so the attacks were obviously caused by the US government, which claimed that Al Qaeda was responsible as part of a labyrinthine plot to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein.

Keep cutting motivations and facts in half, and you wind up claiming that the planes we saw on 9/11 were sophisticated holograms and the collapses were caused by focused laser beams or, say, that the whole thing was a cover-up for a weather-control satellite test run. You can just keep chopping that arrow down to subatomic particles and you never run out of ideas to parse into something crazier and even more dramatic.

Ron Paul appeals to Truthers precisely because he makes a pitch for one seemingly unbreakable idea: the Constitution. If you reject the idea of the Constitution, you reject the idea of the United States of America; it's the one idea you can't split in half. Therefore, Truthers cling to it—and to Ron Paul's fundamentalist interpretation of it—like a life raft. It's religious dogma for skeptics: How do you feel about traffic light cameras? Are they in the Constitution? No? Then fuck 'em. Did the founding fathers have Social Security in mind? Hell, no. Fuck it, then—let the olds rot in hell.

This philosophy fits with all the various One World Government conspiracy theorists, an antidote to the creeping global information control plots that Paulites see themselves rebelling against.

(Constant)​

There are two primary problems with the proposition that Ron Paul will win enough support to be taken seriously as a candidate:

• Ron Paul
• Ron Paul's supporters​

____________________

Notes:

Constant, Paul. "Why Ron Paul Will Never Win". The Stranger. September 20, 2011. TheStranger.com. September 28, 2011. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/why-ron-paul-will-never-win/Content?oid=10041650

 

[madanthonywayne]

There are two primary problems with the proposition that Ron Paul will win enough support to be taken seriously as a candidate:

• Ron Paul
• Ron Paul's supporters​

And yet, Ron Paul beats Obama in the most recent Harris poll 51-49

 

[Tiassa]

And?

And yet, Ron Paul beats Obama in the most recent Harris poll 51-49

And?

One poll, of adults in general, over a year before the election.

The one good thing that would come from a Ron Paul nomination by the GOP is that he finally would have to start answering for himself.

If the Harris poll is going to worry me, I'll worry about Mitt Romney.

 

[Michael]

I voted Obama, next time I'm voting Paul, regardless if he's on the ticket for the GOP or not.

 

[JuNie]

Never understood the obsession with Ron Paul. I don't understand Libertarianism. I'll believe it when I see a Libertarian country that works.

 

[chimpkin]

Hiya JuNie!

I vote for Libertarian criminal court judges over Republican ones. But I'd never vote Libertarian for a regulatory commission or a school board.

Eyeswideshut:
Could it be that in times when every issue is split in two opposite "truths" we are forced to make a choice based on feeling.
racism, abortion, feminism, economy, atheism, evolution, religions...you name it.

People who would like to control you want you to make a decision based on emotions. The emotional side of the self is important, but is easily led and very irrational.

They may offer things up as dichotomies. That is almost always a chainsaw oversimplification. Humans are complex creatures.

I was taught to try to make a decision from the synthesis of my emotional mind and my rational mind...and in order to do this one must be centered and calm.

 

[eyeswideshut]

People who would like to control you want you to make a decision based on emotions. The emotional side of the self is important, but is easily led and very irrational.

They may offer things up as dichotomies. That is almost always a chainsaw oversimplification. Humans are complex creatures.

I was taught to try to make a decision from the synthesis of my emotional mind and my rational mind...and in order to do this one must be centered and calm.

Yes, thats how it works.
We see lots of ridiculing of Ron Paul based on what ? Emotions maybe ?
What puzzles me is what exactly is there so wrong about Paul policies for those who oppose him, cutting spending, having sound money, getting of wars, defending constitution and civil liberties, having a free markets and so on. Maybe the medicine is too hard to swallow when things have gone too far and they let the big brother take care of everything.
I look the other candidates and its just mindboggling.
In example I cant pinpoint anything about Obamas policies what he really wants in real politics, I see just lips moving, lots of grand words and appealing to emotions but in the end things remain the same.

 

[joepistole]

Never understood the obsession with Ron Paul. I don't understand Libertarianism. I'll believe it when I see a Libertarian country that works.

I think you nailed it. Show me succesful Libertarian state. It doesn't exist. The best a Libertarian can do is point to the era of the industrial revolution when individuals could do almost anything they wanted with out regard to government- no pollution regulation, no labor laws, etc. And we all know what that was like, massive pollution, shorter life spans, extreme poverty everywhere, no middle class to speak of - yeah back to the good old days of public squalor and Tiny Tim.

I remember reading somwhere that Libertarianism is more of a reaction to government than an actual form of government. Because a true Libertarian government could not exist. And smart Libertarians know that. So then you get into the game of exceptions to the dogma and who determines the exceptions to dogma in order to allow a government to function? And that is a loosing game. You wind up back where you started. But in the interim, a lot of people have been ripped off and killed.

 

[eyeswideshut]

...And we all know what that was like, massive pollution, shorter life spans, extreme poverty everywhere, no middle class to speak of - yeah back to the good old days of public squalor and Tiny Tim.

Is that what Libertarianism/Ron Paul is for ? In 21st century ?
What a cheap shot, I think you can do better than that.

 

[The Esotericist]

And yet, Ron Paul beats Obama in the most recent Harris poll 51-49

Ironic huh? That's political double-speak for ya. "Unelectable" means, he's a gift to the Republican party, and is quite possibly the ONLY candidate they currently have that IS electable.

More evidence that the Zionist lobby controls the MSM and the presidential electoral process. Why else would Obama be so stupid as to veto Palestinian statehood? They are really castrating American influence and power in the world.

 

[joepistole]

Is that what Libertanians/Ron Paul is for ? In 21st century ?
What a cheap shot, I think you can do better than that.

Where were you when his devotees were cheering the death of his uninsured former employee?

It is not a cheap shot. It is the truth.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Where were you when his devotees were cheering the death of his uninsured former employee?

It is not a cheap shot. It is the truth.

What ? Never heard about it. Where should I have been ? The mudslinging contest has start now or what ? Derailing the thread or something like that ? You sure like to use word truth a lot...

 

[quadraphonics]

And yet, Ron Paul beats Obama in the most recent Harris poll 51-49

By all means, then, please go right ahead and nominate Ron Paul. Maybe you can even get Bachmann to be his running mate, just in case Paul wouldn't be hilarious enough on his own.

 

[The Esotericist]

I'm sorry, you were saying something about selling excrement an agenda?

. . . just sayin' lol You're little smear campaign is hypocritical and irrelevant.

There are two primary problems with the proposition that Ron Paul will win enough support to be taken seriously as a candidate:

• Ron Paul
• Ron Paul's supporters​

Your inflammatory articles which are based almost wholly on emotional appeals, slander, and a type of character assassination of a large segment of society it is quite frankly, shameful.

Zogby

The polls that have received the most widespread media attention are those conducted by Zogby International. The Zogby polls have been sponsored by organizations within the 9/11 Truth Movement including 911truth.org.

The first one was conducted in August 2004, on the eve of a Republican National Convention, on 808 randomly-selected residents of New York State. It found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act".[4] The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent.

The second major Zogby poll on 9/11 was conducted in May 2006. It was a telephone interview of 1,200 randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 81 questions, with a 2.9 percent margin of error.[5] Some of the questions asked include the following:

"Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure

"World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?"

Responses: 43% Not Aware / 38% Aware - should have investigated it / 14% Aware - right not to investigate it / 5% Not Sure

"Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

Responses: 47% Attacks were thoroughly investigated / 45% Reinvestigate the attacks / 8% Not Sure

The third major Zogby poll regarding 9/11 was conducted in August 2007. It was a telephone interview with a target of 1,000 interviews with randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 71 questions, with a 3.1 percent margin of error.[6]

The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts.

In addition, the poll also found that two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Only 4.8 percent of the respondents agreed that members of the United States government "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_opinion_polls#United_States
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org
Trying to marginalize and disparage such a large, well educated, patriotic cross section of society will do you no good. We are talking about from a third, to nearly half of all Americans here. Hell, even my nine year old can tell the difference between an asymmetrical collapse caused by natural conditions, and a symmetrical near free fall collapse that is engineered.

Your whole argument boils down to; Ron Paul's supporters are for truth, disclosure, openness, integrity and honesty in government, and this is something they believe they see in Paul. Clearly they are delusional paranoid freaks.
Ron Paul, unlike most politicians seems to project these qualities.

Since these type of people are loony to actually want this in their government representatives, and he is even more reckless and deluded for thinking he could even try to bring these qualities to our broken, perverse, twisted, and corrupt system, he can't possibly win. He is even more irresponsible for making these people believe that he could make a change or any difference in the system as it stands.

Good argument. Yeah, America is so full of idiots, you're probably right.

 

[Tiassa]

The obvious

Thank you for making my point.

 

[The Esotericist]

And we all know what that was like, massive pollution, shorter life spans, extreme poverty everywhere, no middle class to speak of - yeah back to the good old days of public squalor and Tiny Tim.

hmmmm. . . Libertarianism can't be all bad. At least it would grow the economy in a way that the other two Keynesian based approaches won't. As it stands now? We're already getting "massive pollution, shorter life spans, extreme poverty everywhere, no middle class to speak of," and what the hell have we got to show for it? A gutted nation, broken education system, rotting inner cities, destroyed infrastructure, non-existent industry, a wrecked financial system, a bottomless hole of debt. . . you name it!