Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Idiotic Question

Often I hear quasi-intelligent people ask, "Why support Ron Paul? He has no chance of winning."

As if the likelihood of wars in the future was a reason for not supporting peace. As if the existence of injustice was grounds for dismissing justice. As if because the majority of the people are idiots, then I cannot be smart. As if just because I am overweight now, then I should not try to shed a few (dozen) pounds.

I'd rather lose with the good than win with the bad. Go ahead, ye supporters of Xerxes. I will fight with Leonidas. Call me a fool, but I stand between you and more war, more taxes, more regulation, and slavery--that's right, I said slavery.


  1. Mike Kaz8:28 PM

    I wonder how many people have not voted for Ron Paul simply because they believe that he will not win. If everyone believes this, then he will certainly not win. These same people have no right to complain about the government if they believed they had to vote from a certain selection of candidates only because their friends and the media told them too. Maybe this is the reason that so many people seem to strongly dislike Hillary Clinton, yet she still gets top results. From my experience, Clinton is the most widely hated candidate, but somehow she gets an alarming number of votes.

  2. Anonymous10:46 PM

    Same here! I hate the reasons that people give to as to why he wont work as president. It's obsecene to hear the garbage that "informed voters" spew to me. Maybe we should just go to having mandatory tests to see if you qualify to vote? Your thoughts...-al

  3. Anonymous1:50 PM

    Sir Edmund Burke once said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

  4. run-on dmc10:03 AM

    I do believe they used to have literacy tests and other assessments for voting qualifications in the south long ago. If applied non-racially, why can't such tests be used to prove the capability to make sound decisions? Is that too Hamilton of me?


Bill of Rights