Don't worry, you can trust me. I'm not like the others.

Banned In China

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

A Little Follow UP

This is just too good to pass up.
A sort of follow up to yesterdays post.  The piling on on Greenwald is still going on.  Now as I (very) briefly peruse the comments I see that we are very angry with Paul, not because of his (quite correct) positions on endless war, drug war, indefinite detention, or total surveillance state.  We are angry because of his method of getting to those positions.  We will of course not discuss the positions themselves, nor will we discuss how "liberals/progressives/leftists" are able to support a president who takes the wrong side on all those issues.

One of the more interesting attacks on Paul is on his position on the drug war.  Apparently his position is not to be considered because he wants to let the states determine the drug laws.  As opposed to the current guy who wants to continue the drug war nationwide.  Some how this makes Paul's position not serious I guess.

Otherwise, the complete ability to refuse to deal with the issues themselves, but rather allow the discussion to deteriorate into discussions of whether or not Paul could really be elected or whether or not he could accomplish his major positions if he were elected is more important then a discussion of the issues and why it is that the "progressive" community is able to support a guy who is nothing but a Wall Street Whore, or as I have began to think of him as a kinder gentler softer fascist.

I guess I should say that I find most of Paul's positions horrible in the extreme, but the idea of placing a flaming reactionary who believes in certain things that most "liberals" claim to believe in opposite a guy who played a liberal on TV and then demanding that "liberals" justify their support of the TV liberal is entertaining.  Of course they managed to refuse to engage in the merits or lack thereof of the positions and charge off in several other directions ignoring the issues. 


Francisco Castelo Branco said... - US ELECTIONS

Cujo359 said...

Agreed. I think that what progressives ought to be discussing is what chance Paul has of getting done the different parts of his agenda, and whether that's enough to justify either voting for him, or not caring one way or the other.

It's a bit humbling that the only person(s) (Huntsman also supports a couple of these positions) who are major party presidential candidates and espouse somewhat progressive positions on issues of foreign wars, the drug war, the Fed, or civil liberties are Republican reactionaries.

It's another demonstration of how little the constant habit of voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us as progressives.

lawguy said...

For me the most amazing thing was a couple of bloggers who apparently agree with Paul's positions on our various "wars" both internal and external, butcan't support them because of the logic he used in getting to those conclusions.

If I may quote Steve Jobs "Wow, just wow."