A perfect example of blind partisanship

[Machjo]

YouTube - CNN hosts shocked when Republican guest picks Ron Paul

I love this video. The Republican chooses Ron Paul, the democrat refuses to commit to any particular Democrat yet sticks to protecting the environment.

Irony of all ironies, seeing that Ron Paul, though a Republican, has been among the most outspoken opponents of the war in Iraq (even when compared to Democrats!), one would have thought that a thinking Democrat who was so concerned about the environment, and aware of the environmental devastation of war, would be able to look past rhetoric and support Ron Paul, strangely enough.

A perfect example of how partisanship can blind even otherwise intelligent people.

And here we have a good example of a non-partisan candidate, or at least about as non-partisan as you can get from a party member anyway:

YouTube - CNBC learns not to 'mess with' Ron Paul, followers

He can attract support from across the board.

 

[Avro]

I love this video. The Republican chooses Ron Paul, the democrat refuses to commit to any particular Democrat yet sticks to protecting the environment.

Irony of all ironies, seeing that Ron Paul, though a Republican, has been among the most outspoken opponents of the war in Iraq (even when compared to Democrats!), one would have thought that a thinking Democrat who was so concerned about the environment, and aware of the environmental devastation of war, would be able to look past rhetoric and support Ron Paul, strangely enough.

A perfect example of how partisanship can blind even otherwise intelligent people.

How could a democrat support a man who wants to abolish public education?

Hitler was a veagan, should veagans support him for that alone?

 

[Machjo]

How could a democrat support a man who wants to abolish public education?

Hitler was a veagan, should veagans support him for that alone?

You do have a point there. But within the context of that specific first video, there is no mention of education, but there is of the environment. Certainly ending a war would be a major step forward there.

The Democrat in that video may have very legitimate reasons to support this or that Democrat, but from what she says, she is totally unable to articulate her views. All she can say is she supports Democrats for the environment and that's that and can't even mention a candidate to compare to Paul.

 

[Avro]

Sure, you can support a candidate on one issue or another but if they totally go against something on a massive scale like Ron Paul, being viable is out of the question.

The only guy I know who would vote for Paul based on all his policies is John Stossil and he's a major douche.:lol:

 

[Tonington]

...The Republican wants Paul to win, but the question was specifically to predict the winner. None actually picked who they thought would win, perhaps none of them thought it was obvious?

Maybe the Democrat actually knows Ron Paul's voting history?

He voted no to removing oil and gas subsidies.
He voted no on raising the corporate average fuel economy standards.
He voted no to prohibiting oil and gas drilling in wildlife refuges like that in Alaska.

The best he ever scored on the League of Conservation voters scorecard is 41%, in the 107th Congress (2001-2).

Why would the Democrat choose Paul?

Oh yeah, so how exactly is this a perfect case of blind partisanship?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

How could a democrat support a man who wants to abolish public education?

Hitler was a veagan, should veagans support him for that alone?

Also don't forget he wants to amend the Civil Rights legislation to permit segregated bathrooms and aggregated lunch counters.

Forget about a Democrat, but i don't see how any rational, thinking person will support Paul. One has to be a rabid extreme right wing teabagger to support him.

 

[Machjo]

Also don't forget he wants to amend the Civil Rights legislation to permit segregated bathrooms and aggregated lunch counters.

Forget about a Democrat, but i don't see how any rational, thinking person will support Paul. One has to be a rabid extreme right wing teabagger to support him.

OK, I'll admit I just learnt about him today, and I'd have to see where he'd ever promoted reofficializing segregation to be sure it's not just more propaganda. But I certainly do like hid idea of pulling the US out of the business of being the world's policeman in a big way.

Oh my, maybe he is racist after all:

Ron Paul's Racism in Action

In fact, he's so racist even black people support him thinking he can't really mean what he said:

YouTube - An African American view on Ron Paul for President not obama

 

[SirJosephPorter]

OK, I'll admit I just learnt about him today, and I'd have to see where he'd ever promoted reofficializing segregation to be sure it's not just more propaganda. But I certainly do like hid idea of pulling the US out of the business of being the world's policeman in a big way.

I am not sure about Ron Paul, but his son, Rand Paul did say recently that he favors amending Civil Rights legislation to permit discrimination by private businesses. At the same time, he also praised BP for its clean up efforts and demanded that government leave BP alone to clean up the mess as they see fit.

 

[Machjo]

...The Republican wants Paul to win, but the question was specifically to predict the winner. None actually picked who they thought would win, perhaps none of them thought it was obvious?

Maybe the Democrat actually knows Ron Paul's voting history?

He voted no to removing oil and gas subsidies.
He voted no on raising the corporate average fuel economy standards.
He voted no to prohibiting oil and gas drilling in wildlife refuges like that in Alaska.

The best he ever scored on the League of Conservation voters scorecard is 41%, in the 107th Congress (2001-2).

Why would the Democrat choose Paul?

Oh yeah, so how exactly is this a perfect case of blind partisanship?

Perhaps. But still she should at least be able to name someone and give a reason. To say I'll vote for Buggs Bunny as long as he belongs to my party is a little ludicrous.

I am not sure about Ron Paul, but his son, Rand Paul did say recently that he favors amending Civil Rights legislation to permit discrimination by private businesses. At the same time, he also praised BP for its clean up efforts and demanded that government leave BP alone to clean up the mess as they see fit.

Even within the same family, people can have different ideas. Why penalise one for the acts of another?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Even within the same family, people can have different ideas. Why penalise one for the acts of another?

Both Ron Paul and Rand Paul call themselves Libertarians (they are not really, I think both are just right wing extremists). Chances are Ron Paul thinks the same way his son does (or rather, the other way round).

 

[Machjo]

Both Ron Paul and Rand Paul call themselves Libertarians (they are not really, I think both are just right wing extremists). Chances are Ron Paul thinks the same way his son does (or rather, the other way round).

Different people waring the same label can still have differing views.

Some of Ron Paul's ideas I certainly do oppose. In fact some of his ideas would likely be quite harmful to the US if he ever succeeded in implementing them, or at least based on how I understand them so far.

Al that being said, he certainly strikes a cord when he says he wants to bring the troops back and he means it. Before anything else can be fixed in that country, the US first has to in fact start looking inward and not always outward.

 

[Tonington]

Perhaps. But still she should at least be able to name someone and give a reason.

She said she didn't know, but she knew it would be a Democrat. After 8 years of Bush, that's pretty much a given I thought. Almost like when Harper's Conservatives won. After the Liberals and their Sponsorship scandal, and the 12 years of other crap, it wasn't going to be a Liberal party winning that election.

When was that video from CNN shot? There was a time when Obama didn't have the nomination secured....

 

[Bar Sinister]

I've seen Mr. Paul in TV interviews a few times and the best I can say about him is that his policies seemed based on a naive and confused platform of simplistic capitalism and American populism. Some of his ideas might have merit, but many would do a good deal more harm than good.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Different people waring the same label can still have differing views.

Some of Ron Paul's ideas I certainly do oppose. In fact some of his ideas would likely be quite harmful to the US if he ever succeeded in implementing them, or at least based on how I understand them so far.

Al that being said, he certainly strikes a cord when he says he wants to bring the troops back and he means it. Before anything else can be fixed in that country, the US first has to in fact start looking inward and not always outward.

I think he is getting together with Barney Franks (the two are the opposite poles in politics) to sponsor a resolution to bring the troops home.

 

[Machjo]

I've seen Mr. Paul in TV interviews a few times and the best I can say about him is that his policies seemed based on a naive and confused platform of simplistic capitalism and American populism. Some of his ideas might have merit, but many would do a good deal more harm than good.

If he ever made it as Prez, I'm sure Congress would keep him enough in check. No worries there.

SJP, I'll admit I don't know much about Barney Frank (heck, I don't follow US politics that closely honestly and only yesterday did I really start looking up Ron Paul).But here's a good video anyway.Of course the Republicans have their own blind partisans as you can see here:

YouTube - Barney Frank: Who Do You Think Paid For Iraq War Santa Claus! Barney's Fault or Bush?

But at least in this video, though I still don't know where I stand on health care, Frank is perfectly right about the relationship between war and debt.

But it would seem Frank and Paul are the kinds of politicians we need in Canada. People who are willing to work in a non-partisan manner and build bridges across the floor. Why do we not have such people in Canada?

Sure we have the almost-coalition that had occurred. However, even that was totally partisan as an attempt just to protect party funding.

 

[Bar Sinister]

If he ever made it as Prez, I'm sure Congress would keep him enough in check. No worries there.

Really? I assume that is tongue-in-cheek considering the way Bush and Co. manipulated Congress.