No, do you?

Generally people ask you to clarify if they didn't understand what you said and want to. If instead they bark at a strawman, I don't usually figure they're interested.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though:
What I'm saying here is that we don't have to know "the optimal strategy" to something perfect to be able to judge whether something in front of us is good or bad. (Reaching a stateless society, or whether or not that's possible, isn't the point.)

"! Ron Paul" seems grossly practical.

Government is always kept in check by the possibility that people won't tolerate it any more, and imo that's the biggest threat to it. It's like if you're a little kid playing with a balloon and it gets really windy, it might not be so fun to have to hold it real tight for a while, but that's probably better than losing it forever.

I think Ron Paul serves a purpose for the state a lot more than his supporters tend to recognize. If he or Rand Paul or someone was elected President, imo it'd actually be more dangerous and less free relative to if they weren't doing it. Even if on one hand he's calling for a shrinking government... maybe they'd have to do that stuff anyways, they're sort of bankrupt... on the other hand, he's drawing in patience from people who otherwise might be quick to lose interest or rebel. So his actual function seems murky at best, and it probably allows them more room to be aggressive (with what's left of the beast) relative to if it was Stooge McQuack as the figurehead.

So again your saying the optimal strategy is all or nothing... I thought you didn't know what it was.

I haven't been following much of your babble itt, but this part seems anywhere from completely wrong - absurd to me.

The optimal strategy for what?

Good argument; you've convinced me.

I think this is a reasonable ideological view if your only goal is the dissolution of the state. The most likely outcome of Paul running is that he loses, but his popularity forces the mainstream candidates to implement reforms that only prolong the life of the state. States pretty much have to hit rock bottom before they die.

I'm reminded of a saying in finance, though "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." I think the state will be around longer than I'll be alive, so I will be happy if its authority over me is reduced.

This is the common sentiment from the Libertarians. Anything not RP cannon is considered babble. Anything not already accepted by you is considered babble. Everything to you all is babble unless it leads to following a single libertarian cause. And you all post about freedom and liberty, when you are pleading for everyone else to capitulate.

For such a rambunctious crowd, who enjoyed tossing barbs at the governing bodies, now you ain't got real responses to your guys lack of credibility. Instead of articulating your (or is it RP's policies that constantly need explanation) gospel, you tell questioners they are ignorant idiots. Gotta love the irony, and the door you all swung that's now smashing you in the face.

But you keep on a smiling and claiming you can gain anymore than sideshow status.

Well either it makes sense or it doesn't, regardless of what my goals are.

Fwiw, I'm just interested in maximizing freedom (and what's best for the long-term should also apply to the short-term and vice versa as far as I can figure).

I agree (sort of), but I don't think "Ron Paul" forces their hand here as much as it's just common sense and increasingly common knowledge and economic reality that makes them scale back. (Ron Paul definitely influences the rhetoric a lot, but that's just rhetoric, and doesn't necessarily line up with how the government will act. Actual changes that the government makes are probably based on other things, and imo it would force their hand a lot more if the people voting for Ron Paul were instead totally disinterested in looking to the state.)

me too! I think I might outlive the state though

Thread is becoming AIDS.

Ron Paul Rips into Marijuana Bull

Yeah, the bolded, I knew the rest of what you wrote - it just seemed amazing to me how someone who basically disses the Repubs almost as hard as the Dems could be a Republican senator. Hadn't given it more thought beyond that, of course they can't stop him from running. Quite interesting that the people chose him over his opposition in the GOP.

Going after the marijuana user vote is a losing proposition politically, unless the law is changed so that people who vote get potato chips.

WTF are you talking about? He typed up a paragraph that is essentially rambling nonsense. It isn't clear, but is a series of random ideas and statements in between elipses.

I disagree with his claims that Ron or Rand Paul as president would lead to less freedom. I disagree with his speculation that having one of them as president would lead to all the people who are against government being "less likely to rebel."

I don't really have any interest in arguing with you because you put words in people's mouths and make stupid assumptions.

Ron Paul on CNBC 05/31/11

For the most recent Ron Paul videos, visit RonPaulFlix.com

fermion, what's with the website spamming, is that yours?

not my website. I just figured it would be helpful to get more people to watch more RP videos. If TomVeil tells me to stop, I will.

You posted "babble itt", not "babble in that paragraph". (It was definitely a ramble, but after another guy comes out of the woodwork to strawman me from five pages ago, I figured I may as well explain my thought process. Cry about it?)

Then I wonder how you arrive at "completely wrong/absurd".

It's unclear what you're saying here imo.

Ron Paul at Rose Bowl in Mason City, May 31, 2011

Thomas E. Woods rebuts Mother Jones Article About RP

Really good.

"I like to keep these videos brief" ..... 26:17

I wish these guys would just write a damn article

Also in b4 "Tom Woods is a wacist"

It just goes to show how out of the libertarian-loop I am that I had no idea Woods had a vblog. Gunna have to watch some of these now. Nice find.

He has some very good videos. I like this one in particular:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLUoW...feature=relmfu

It'd be a good one to show to a typical neocon.

Ron Paul
My hearing went well today. Did you that 88% of the bank bailout money through the discount window went to foreign banks?

Ron Paul on Cavuto June 1 2011

Paul's facebook writer needs to be fired.