And therein is your fundamental shortcoming. You confuse parroting with "brilliance."
No.
Von Mises was brilliant. Friedman was brilliant.
RuPaul isn't "brilliant."
Someone who occasionally (or even often) adopts a correct position is just that...correct (in those circumstances). Adoption doesn't equate to brilliance.
I agree with the theory of relativity, but I'm no Einstein.
I follow the law of gravity. That doesn't make me Newton.
Not that anyone gives a fig.
Someone who occasionally (or even often) adopts a correct position is just that...correct (in those circumstances). Adoption doesn't equate to brilliance.
I think this is a very good point, and well put. I generally like Ron Paul, with qualifications, but I think you have put this very well.
If I may say this though, I don't think you score any points with anyone by using the term "RuPaul." It doesn't really seem to apply as a denigration. Ron Paul is a lot of things, and is wrong as many people are about things, and in that I think he deserves criticism. However, he is not a drag queen and so the allusion is lost on me. Why use it at all as it seems to distract from your larger points?