3 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
- The problem with Ron Paul - from my point of view - is that, for every policy position of his that I agree with, there is another policy position of his that I find either insane or just plain demagoguery. This isn't to dismiss the substance of Glen Greenwald's article. Only to suggest that Ron Paul really isn't the white knight candidate who will inadvertently absolve liberals of all their sins, referring to Matt Stoller's article.
Having said that, I am quite sure at this point that I cannot bring myself to vote again for a Democratic presidential candidate who, during his first term as President, has governed as if it was George W. Bush's third.Dec 31, 2011
- you just LOVE posting tl;dr-worthy articles, knowing that we'll read them, don't you? ಠ_ಠJan 1, 2012
- "Since then, Paul’s handling of the very legitimate questions surrounding those rancid newsletters has been disappointing in the extreme, and that has only served to obscure these vital debates and severely dilute the discourse-enhancing benefits of his candidacy."
"disappointing in the extreme" links to http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/qu-1.html
but that site merely quotes someone commenting on RP, as opposed to quoting RP.
In the only interviews I've seen with RP that brought up the newsletters in question, he says that he has no idea why they are brought up every time he runs for office, that he didn't read or know about the offensive articles published under his name until ten or so years later, and that he disavows them. While I'm enjoying the writing style of this article, I'm realizing that I shouldn't assume that his statements are true simply because he cited a link in the statement.
Still a decent read so far, and I'd tend to agree with a lot of the message.Jan 1, 2012
- also, I hunted this down after watching the TYT video that was embedded:
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!
aaaaaaaand then I scrolled down in my g+ feed...oh well, I'll leave this here anyway.Jan 1, 2012