26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/26-things-non-paul-voters-are-basically-saying/

Quote :

(1) The American political establishment has done a super job keeping our country prosperous and our liberties protected, so I’m sure whatever candidate they push on me is probably a good one.

(2) Our country is basically bankrupt. Unfunded entitlement liabilities are in excess of twice world GDP. Therefore, it’s a good idea to vote for someone who offers no specific spending cuts of any kind.

(3) Vague promises to cut spending are good enough for me, even though they have always resulted in higher spending in the past.

(4) I prefer a candidate who plays to the crowd, instead of having the courage to tell his audience things they may not want to hear.

(5) I am deeply concerned about spending. Therefore, I would like to vote for someone who supported Medicare Part D, thereby adding $7 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liabilities.

(6) I am opposed to bailouts. Therefore, I will vote for a candidate who supported TARP.

(7) The federal government is much too involved in education, where it has no constitutional role. Therefore, I will vote for a candidate who supported expanding the Department of Education and favored the No Child Left Behind Act.

[8] Even though practically everyone was caught by surprise in the 2008 financial crisis, which we are still reeling from, it’s a good idea not to vote for the one man in politics who predicted exactly what was bound to unfold, all the way back in 2001.

(9) I am not impressed by a candidate who inspires people, especially young ones, to read the great economists and political philosophers.

(10) I am concerned about taxes. Therefore, I will not vote for the one candidate who has never supported a tax increase.

(11) I believe it is conservative to support bringing the Enlightenment to Afghanistan via military intervention.

(12) Even though I lost half my retirement portfolio when the economy crashed from the sugar high the Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates put it on, I would like to vote for someone who is not really interested in the Federal Reserve.

(13) Even though 50 years of the embargo on Cuba did nothing to undermine Fidel Castro, and in fact handed him a perfect excuse for all the failures of socialism, I favor continuing this policy.

(14) If someone has a drug problem, prison rape is the best solution I can think of.

(15) Even though the Constitution had to be amended to allow for alcohol prohibition, and even though I claim to care about the Constitution, I don’t mind that there’s no constitutional authorization for the war on drugs, and I will punish at the polls anyone who favors the constitutional solution of returning the issue to the states.

(16) I believe only a “liberal” would think it was inhumane to keep essential items out of Iraq in the 1990s, even though one of the first people to protest this policy was Pat Buchanan.

(17) The Brookings Institution says Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America was an insignificant nibbling around the edges. I favor people who support insignificant nibbling around the edges, as long as they occasionally trick me with a nice speech.

(18) I am deeply concerned about radical Islam, so it was a good idea to depose the secular Saddam Hussein — who was so despised by Islamists that Osama bin Laden himself offered to fight against him in the 1991 Persian Gulf War — and replace him with a Shiite regime friendly with Iran, while also bringing about a new Iraqi constitution that makes Islam the state religion and forbids any law that contradicts its teachings.

(19) Indefinite detention for U.S. citizens seems like nothing to be worried about, especially since our political class is so trustworthy that it could never abuse such a power.

(20) Following up on (19), I believe Thomas Jefferson was just being paranoid when he said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

(21) Even though the war in Iraq was based on crude propaganda I would have laughed at if the Soviet Union had peddled it, and even though the result has been hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, four million people displaced, trillions of dollars down the drain, tens of thousands of serious injuries among American servicemen and an epidemic of suicide throughout the military, not to mention the ruination of America’s reputation in the world, I see no reason to be skeptical when the same people who peddled that fiasco urge me to support yet another war as my country is going bankrupt.

(22) I do not trust the media. But when the media tells me I am not to support Ron Paul, who says things he is not allowed to say, I will comply.

(23) I know the media will smear or marginalize anyone who would really fix this country. But when the media smears and marginalizes Ron Paul, I will draw no conclusion from this.

(24) I want to be spoken to like this: “My fellow Americans, you are the awesomest of the awesome, and the only reason anyone in the world might be unhappy with your government is because of your sheer awesomeness.”

(25) I think it’s a good idea to vote for Mitt Romney, whose top three donors are Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, and Morgan Stanley, and a bad idea to vote for Ron Paul, whose top three donors are the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force.

(26) I have not been exploited enough by the cozy relationship between large financial firms and the U.S. government, and I would like to see it continue.

This article is a true masterpiece!

It truly is madness to vote for any other candidate. We are hanging over the precipice.

Political satire at its finest. Always good for a laugh. And the title of the article, which I read in its entirety, is what I would call a slight of hand. Actually going into the article you will find this statement: ". . . 26 things non-Paul supporters appear to be saying." We aren't actually saying those things but Mr. Wood thinks we 'appear' to be saying them. Nice try - I didn't buy it but I did get a chuckle out of it.

dubob wrote:

Political satire at its finest. Always good for a laugh. And the title of the article, which I read in its entirety, is what I would call a slight of hand. Actually going into the article you will find this statement: ". . . 26 things non-Paul supporters appear to be saying." We aren't actually saying those things but Mr. Wood thinks we 'appear' to be saying them. Nice try - I didn't buy it but I did get a chuckle out of it.

Satire? Not likely! As for the "slight of hand"; I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.......or. do you not understand the meaning of "basically"?

Damn it Boob I think you are right. Pure satire at its finest.
The first point covers entitlements. I wonder if a good free
Market corporatist considers the billions of dollars incorp.
Entitlements the same as paying for a retired veterans prescription??

We've been in agreement to much lately especially concerning
That "Soverign Citizen" Ron Paul.

voiceofreason wrote:

We've been in agreement to much lately especially concerning
That "Soverign Citizen" Ron Paul.

And that should be enough to wake dubob up from his stupor! But alas, he seems to be getting 'progressively' into a deep slumber.......

voiceofreason wrote:

Damn it Boob I think you are right. Pure satire at its finest.
The first point covers entitlements. I wonder if a good free
Market corporatist considers the billions of dollars incorp.
Entitlements the same as paying for a retired veterans prescription??

Are you really this STUPID? Name one example of when/where/how Ron Paul endorses "corporate entitlements"! Stop eating the paint chips already!!

"Beating Obam is the name of the game and Ron Paul can't win."

Gonna be another long 4 years for ya Boob...

So Paul Sponsoring a tax credit for the Natural Gas industry in his home state
isn't a Corp give away??? Cheney - Halliburton???

Let me tell ALL of you Ron Paul supporters what this "Non Paul Voter" thinks.

1 There is never a good explanation to an opposing view of Paul's. It's always he was misquoted, not what he meant, or we are not smart enough to "get it".

dubob wrote:

proutdoors wrote:

Satire? Not likely! As for the "slight of hand"; I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.......or. do you not understand the meaning of "basically"?

Oh, I comprehend just fine. The fact that the title to the article says ‘basically’ and then the article says ‘appears’ was the basis for deeming it a slight of hand. So which is it Pro; are we (non-Ron Paul supporters) saying it or do we just appear to be say it? I, for one, am not saying any of those things nor do I believe any of them to be true. But I am still firmly convinced the Ron Paul cannot win in a contest with Obama. Call me a one issue voter if you must, but the most important issue in the upcoming election is to defeat Obama. The warts of any of the other candidates running on the GOP side are secondary to me at this time. Beating Obam is the name of the game and Ron Paul can't win.

Lets take a look at example (1):
(1) The American political establishment has done a super job keeping our country prosperous and our liberties protected, so I’m sure whatever candidate they push on me is probably a good one.
You say "Beating Obama is the name of the game...." I ask why? Did any of the last...let's just go back a little ways.....five Republican presidents reduce the deficit, keep us out of wars, shrink the size/scope of the federal government, increase liberties? Clearly the answers are all NO! So, why is the 'only' issue getting Obama out of office?

voiceofreason wrote:

"Beating Obam is the name of the game and Ron Paul can't win."

Gonna be another long 4 years for ya Boob...

So Paul Sponsoring a tax credit for the Natural Gas industry in his home state
isn't a Corp give away??? Cheney - Halliburton???

Let me tell ALL of you Ron Paul supporters what this "Non Paul Voter" thinks.

1 There is never a good explanation to an opposing view of Paul's. It's always he was misquoted, not what he meant, or we are not smart enough to "get it".

It must be nice to be so disillusioned....tell me how a tax CREDIT is a Corp 'give away'? Do you not understand what a tax CREDIT is? Can you name ONE entity that doesn't receive tax CREDITS? So yes, in your case the, "we are not smart enough to 'get it." applies 100%.

Yall can bitch and moan all ya want about Mr Paul, if the GOP continues to divide the conservative base and allow all the infighting to prolong, Pres. Obama will easily win another term. Where has the tea party gone? Where is the outrage of the media screwing with the GOP primary? Where is the republican that I can vote for without feeling "lesser of two evils"? Is this a bit too much sky is falling attitude? YUP, but it's another screwed up presidential election!

proutdoors wrote:

dubob wrote:

proutdoors wrote:

Satire? Not likely! As for the "slight of hand"; I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.......or. do you not understand the meaning of "basically"?

Oh, I comprehend just fine. The fact that the title to the article says ‘basically’ and then the article says ‘appears’ was the basis for deeming it a slight of hand. So which is it Pro; are we (non-Ron Paul supporters) saying it or do we just appear to be say it? I, for one, am not saying any of those things nor do I believe any of them to be true. But I am still firmly convinced the Ron Paul cannot win in a contest with Obama. Call me a one issue voter if you must, but the most important issue in the upcoming election is to defeat Obama. The warts of any of the other candidates running on the GOP side are secondary to me at this time. Beating Obam is the name of the game and Ron Paul can't win.

Lets take a look at example (1):
(1) The American political establishment has done a super job keeping our country prosperous and our liberties protected, so I’m sure whatever candidate they push on me is probably a good one.
You say "Beating Obama is the name of the game...." I ask why? Did any of the last...let's just go back a little ways.....five Republican presidents reduce the deficit, keep us out of wars, shrink the size/scope of the federal government, increase liberties? Clearly the answers are all NO! So, why is the 'only' issue getting Obama out of office?

Nail on the head, pro.

Pick your puppet, Bob.

dubob wrote:

The only way this country is ever going to recover from the mess we now find ourselves in is to return to the conservative roots that made us great in the first place.

I agree 100% with this, which is why I will NOT cast a vote for Mitt/Newt/Rick! Why? Because they do NOT adhere to "the conservative roots that made us great in the first place"! All three support big government, they just differ on how to get there. One chooses to get through through military wars of intervention, another through FORCED 'Christian morality' via a ban on all abortions, preventing gays from marrying other gays, the other wants to have judges arrested, and all support government intervention into the economic sector in various forms. You can duck and hide, and refuse to respond, but I think deep down you know this to be true, because you are not as blind as vor.

Unfortunately Pro the ones who realize what you have posted are very few, and the sheeple will remain ignorant!

proutdoors wrote:

I agree 100% with this, which is why I will NOT cast a vote for Mitt/Newt/Rick!

Nobody can say for certain at this point who the Republican nominee will be. But for the sake of a discussion, let’s say that it will be Mitt, Newt, or Rick. You’ve already declared that you will NOT vote for any of them. So what are your alternatives? You can vote for a third party candidate (there are almost 30 on the national scale), you can vote for Obama, or you can choose NOT to vote at all. I believe that doing any of those three will, in effect, be voting for Obama.
Does that mean that you feel Obama more closely adheres to the conservative roots that made us great in the first place than do any of the Republicans? Help me out here Pro. I’m really trying to understand your thought process. Are you truly and sincerely willing to suffer through 4 more years of Obama as a better alternative to Mitt/Newt/Rick?

proutdoors wrote:

You can duck and hide, and refuse to respond, but I think deep down you know this to be true, because you are not as blind as vor.

Yonni wrote:

Unfortunately Pro the ones who realize what you have posted are very few, and the sheeple will remain ignorant!

Did you just call me ignorant Yonni?

When I first joined this community I made the prediction that the GOP would
eat itself by perverting what used to be Conservative Values.

Congratulations A-Holes, Ron Paul supporters, ""Sovereign Citizens"
Militia Members.

I guess we will find out exactly how much you self proclaimed Constitutional Experts dislike Obama??

Gimmie Props BITCHES, I called this way back.

dubob wrote:

Yonni wrote:

Unfortunately Pro the ones who realize what you have posted are very few, and the sheeple will remain ignorant!

Did you just call me ignorant Yonni?

I'd have more respect for you if it was simply ignorance, Bob, but it seems more like you've weighed all the data and have decided to join 'treason in the march towards Marxist totalitarianism.

Since our nat'l debt and sovereignty don't seem to matter to you as much as having a handsome product to run against BHO I'm going to begin to ply your shallowness.

I hope your Obamacare card picture turns out better than the one on your driver's license.

voiceofreason wrote:

When I first joined this community I made the prediction that the GOP would
eat itself by perverting what used to be Conservative Values.

Congratulations A-Holes, Ron Paul supporters, ""Sovereign Citizens"
Militia Members.

I guess we will find out exactly how much you self proclaimed Constitutional Experts dislike Obama??

Gimmie Props BITCHES, I called this way back.

Props for your support of Marxism.

So what you are saying BASSY is that you are re-electing Obama??

dubob wrote:

Nobody can say for certain at this point who the Republican nominee will be. But for the sake of a discussion, let’s say that it will be Mitt, Newt, or Rick. You’ve already declared that you will NOT vote for any of them. So what are your alternatives? You can vote for a third party candidate (there are almost 30 on the national scale), you can vote for Obama, or you can choose NOT to vote at all. I believe that doing any of those three will, in effect, be voting for Obama.
Does that mean that you feel Obama more closely adheres to the conservative roots that made us great in the first place than do any of the Republicans? Help me out here Pro. I’m really trying to understand your thought process. Are you truly and sincerely willing to suffer through 4 more years of Obama as a better alternative to Mitt/Newt/Rick?

My alternatives are, IMHO, vote for the progressive Obama, the progressive Mitt/Newt/Rick...thus sending the message to the GOP establishment that I like progressive republicans, write in Ron Paul, or abstain from voting. Being as I am 100% positive my vote will not have ANY effect on who while be in the Oval Office next year, I have narrowed my options to two; write in Ron Paul or abstain from voting.
Of course Obama doesn't "more closely adheres to anything conservative", but I also strongly believe evil is evil, and voting for evil right instead of evil left would still be a vote for evil. It's not that Obama is a 'better' alternative than Mitt/Newt/Rick, it's that I don't see any significant difference between any of them. To me, its like asking me if I want my finger nails pulled off with rusty pliers or with shit covered pliers. Both options leave me without nails, and a strong possibility of infection.......

I took the quiz you posted, shockingly my little yellow dot was dead center in the top corner.......and I have no idea where your dot is, as I couldn't access it. If by chance you are libertarian leaning, I am confused as to how you can support candidates who are clearly NOT...?