Two lame knock-offs of someone vastly superior!
Cool guy Rand Paul.
He seems like a decent enough guy, but he is bad or dodgy on enough issues that I wish he had remained an eye doctor.
You’re allowed to come down on the wrong side as a private citizen, but any politician that isn’t a crypto-anarchist bugs me.
Why couldn’t Rand simply have said that he wants to lower taxes for everyone?
I don’t know. David Letterman is too much of a politically correct host.
So.. all of them?
An anarchist-politician, isn’t that an oxymoron?
Letterman’s response at the very end sums up, I think, the major issue with the dominant mechanism of thought driving modern republicans and democrats, namely, that he did not “feel” like the statement (by Paul) was right, but that he “didn’t know why.”
Actions and Opinions motivated on emotional grounds are dangerous. Emotion is a hugely effective tool of propagandists and always has been. When you disconnect emotion from logical veracity, things get really bad. It’s ok to be emotionally motivated and respond to an issue that you have logically thought through, even if the idea is not your own. But the day that you emotionally respond because the goal “feels right” and base this on nothing else, you invite trouble.
So Letterman here is a good example of, I hate to use the word, “Progressive” political thought: Do what feels right.
He could theoretically be a ‘mole’. So it’s an oxymoron, and possibly bad strategy, but not necessarily a contradiction in terms.
Just saw this clip. I knew Letterman always characterized himself as being dumb, but usually when people do that they’re just trying to be funny or humble. I didn’t realize how accurate he really was.
And I know Rand isn’t very popular around here because he doesn’t come off as enough of an anarchist, but I think this illustrates how effective and useful he can be at introducing the ideas. Most of the guys in here would have alienated the entire audience before the 3 minute mark…but Rand is smart about how he goes about presenting the concepts in a very barebones and concrete way that makes viewpoints that might be very foreign to people quite digestible. The only person I’ve seen do this better is Peter Schiff.
What concepts? All I heard was, “government should do what I want it to do, not what you want it to do. Just because I said so.”
Sigh.
That’s probably because you were too busy bitching about how he’s not an ana-cap to hear much of anything he said.