Crazy n Nutty Politics wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea and that same type of thinking you abhor when it gets people free cell phones via the FCC tax originally designed to get phone service to rural areas. Free for the better good if it happens to serve you. Either you believe in conservatism or you don't.
Such a psuedo poster boy for conservatism. That's why I consider you a neoc0nservative.
You seem to confuse a majority part of the strategy to
get electricity to the homes of Americans because anyone
but a fool could see it was in the national interest ....
and complaining about a dumbass bill that got thru with
hardly attention paid by the liberal media.
I am sorry you can't see the difference between providing
a rural customer with reliable electricity that will allow
him to literally grow and expand his business and keep his
family warm and safe .... and a stupid government program
that was clearly designed to capitalize on the less
fortunate. The former served the public interest. The
latter is just another progressive giveaway.
Call me whatever you wish, CNP .... whenever someone disagrees
with the logic and reasoning of your patron saint you call
them a name. In this case neo-conservatism is just a dumpster
for anyone who doesn't kiss Paul's butt or agree with everything
he says or does. Now you claim those who saw the value in the
federal government creating a program that would assure us that
ALL Americans benefited from the invention called "electricity"
is "neo-conservative." Well, in this particularly case I'll
go with it if it means so much to you. It doesn't matter that
you haven't much of a clue as to how idiotic labeling something
from almost a century ago as "neo-conservative" is pathetic.
Is that a Ron Paul statue on your dashboard or a Ron Paul
bobblehead?
And oh .... Ron Paul also maintained that "mandating natural
gas prices .... making it advantageous for folks to shift from
solar heat to natural gas." For shame! For shame! Tell me,
Horatio, do you think the "solar heat" industry could have
furnished, let us say, sufficient power (not just heat) to
operate an industrialized economy? Back then? Are you freakin'
serious?
Continuing on, in regard to nuclear power, which he claimed
"was imposed upon the nation (ed.??????).. we've never
seen whether there is really a market for it."
My point in these posts, CNP, is to refute the apparently
unacceptable notion that there have been many times when
Paul was sadly and sickening out of touch with the American
people .... even years and years before our agreed "welfare
state." Tell me, CNP, do you think you would be living the
life you live with nothing but windplants and solar power
to cover your needs and the needs of people around you? Or
should access to that incredible gift ... electricity ... have
been limited to the urban elite and those on their direct coattails?
More later, CNP, but keep the name-calling coming. I'll just
say that your idol and ideology is a very poor predictor of
the future unless Paul declared there will be an earthquake in
Los Angeles, a flood in New Orleans, and a tornado in Iowa
sometime in this next decade. You are defending the indefensible
rather than accept the fact that in this case ... THIS ARTICLE
IN 1983 ... Paul was playing to the audience.
Geez .... that would make him a politician.
Once we establish the truth of the above we can begin evaluating
the truth and merits of what Paul has been doing for 30 years
in a clear light .... not the stained glass portrayal you and
so many others offer.
I want to evaluate Ron Paul on the merits of his words, not the
gushing schoolgirl adoration of a cute guy who can't say or do
anything that isn't right or admirable. Get over your crush,
CNP, and get that plastic Ron Paul off the dash.
Gemini
