Ron Paul: The Alternative Candidate is a force to be reckoned with

[sailingaway]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sectionfronts/iPad/images/paul3_1322604002.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-the-alternative-candidate-is-a-force-to-be-reckoned-with/2011/12/01/gIQAKDYouO_story.html

the picture is great but the article is highly misleading. There is a huge difference between saying 'there shouldn't be a nanny state' and saying 'I will end welfare and social security' and they make it sound like the latter when he is actually the only one with a plan to fund them by cutting elsewhere. They try to paint him some kind of conspiracy theorist saying things like 'he argues that the Senate is trying to push through a defense bill which according to him will undermine civil liberties....' because I guess the WaPo crowd gets all warm and fuzzy about indefinite detention of US citizens taken inside their own country without trial or access to courts...

Still, great picture. Wish the 'through the years' slide show was working for me....:(

[Sola_Fide]

Good piece, a little off at times, but great picture.

[1836er]

While technically speaking Ron isn't calling for the dismantling (right now) of the welfare state, the main reason I support him is that he's the only conservative out there who actually intends to begin the process of ending the welfare state (such as by allowing younger folks to opt out of social security for example) and whose long-term end-game strategy (even if a generation or more down the line) is the complete dismantling of the welfare state (as well as all the other unconstitutional parts of the US government).

[sailingaway]

While technically speaking Ron isn't calling for the dismantling (right now) of the welfare state, the main reason I support him is that he's the only conservative out there who actually intends to begin the process of ending the welfare state (such as by allowing younger folks to opt out of social security for example) and whose long-term end-game strategy (even if a generation or more down the line) is the complete dismantling of the welfare state (as well as all the other unconstitutional parts of the US government).

but when you are speaking to people at the END of their working life cycle who have no opportunity to go back and do it differently, it is a very big difference to say 'he would let those under 25 opt out' then to say 'we are pulling the rug out from under YOU after we made you pay in for this purpose all these years.' I feel certain the difference will impact votes.

[low preference guy]

I learned two things from this article:

1. Ron Paul doesn't wear seat belts.
2. The writer is an idiot. It's incredible that the educational system can produce mindless drones like this guy.

[specsaregood]

Still, great picture. Wish the 'through the years' slide show was working for me....:(

Here ya go:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/11/29/Others/Images/2011-11-29/paul%20mara%203_1322604002.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/13/National-Politics/Images/~8328478%202.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/13/National-Politics/Images/~8328478.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/12/National-Politics/Images/Paul_2012_Profile_0e609.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/06/National-Politics/Images/88%20FILER%20RON%20PAUL%201.JPG
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/06/National-Politics/Images/12946901_H456184.JPG
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/06/National-Politics/Images/12946901_H456176.JPG
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/06/National-Politics/Images/12946901_H456166.JPG

[specsaregood]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/12/National-Politics/Images/APTOPIX%20Kentucky%20Senate.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/08/National-Politics/Images/109011747.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/09/National-Politics/Advance/Images/PAULYOUTH9_1323392941.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/12/National-Politics/Images/AP110617143000.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/08/National-Politics/Images/117113876.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/13/National-Politics/Images/121073297.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/11/National-Politics/Images/Paul_2012_Profile_05422.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/10/12/Investigative/Advance/Images/TLS_7022_1318381020.jpg

[ronpaulitician]

I think most unbiased readers would come away with a positive opinion of our guy from this piece. Yeah, there's stuff to correct, but there's ALWAYS stuff to correct, especially in a long piece like this. That's what the comment section is for. Keep it simple, keep it lighthearted. Use honey.