Ron Paul’s farewell salute to freedom

posted at 8:46 pm on November 14, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

There are a fair few issues over which I would heartily disagree with longtime Rep. Ron Paul, but there are also a heck of a lot on which I most vociferously would agree: Limited government, sticking to the Constitution, federalism, free markets, fiscal solvency, classical liberalism, free speech; he knows how to talk a great game on that front. His stubbornly-lingering presidential bid may’ve earned him some ire, and his steadfast libertarianism has managed to garner him a rather — er — shall we say boisterous following, but I wonder if any recent politician has made such a successful career out of sticking to his guns rather than adapting to the political moment; constancy seems to be quite the feat for too many of our elected leaders.

Paul made his farewell speech to the House of Representatives on Wednesday afternoon, as he’ll be retiring at the close of this Congress, and I thought his speech was a good summation of his career and provided some excellent food for thought. Again, I’m not on board with everything he has to say, but he did pose a poignant question of sorts that a lot of conservatives have been pondering in the wake of Mitt Romney’s defeat: “I’ve thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is, the principle that protects all personal, social, and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace, it should be an easy sell. Yet history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians, which are rarely, if ever, fulfilled. Should we have authoritarianism, or liberty?” Selling the conservative vision of freedom as the most effective, penetrating way to help people, and as the pro-market rather than the pro-business party, does seem to be quite the sticking point, doesn’t it? Click the image to watch:

Photobucket


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

And THERE we have it… the reason why people can’t take Paul and his movement seriously. If you think for even a minute that Mitt Romney was the problem, ignoring the in-your-face hostility Barack Obama has ALREADY displayed toward such quaint issues as Individual Liberty, you can’t be surprised if you’re dismissed as crackpots.

Just bear in mind, while we’re all doing our best to learn to live like communist peasants beneath the ruling political class… that nobody else marginalized Libertarianism. You did it yourselves, by your refusal to deal in such mundane issues as REALITY. There were only two viable candidates in this last election. One of them had ALREADY abrogated your citizen rights. And yet, you people treated the other one as if he was the most egregious problem on the off chance that he might.

The only thing that makes that bearable for me, is that you idiots will bailing the same leaky boat as the rest of us. Of course, you’ll squall about it the loudest, but we’ve pretty much become accustomed to your toothless, impotent whining.

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 12:26 PM

The problem is you actually believe their was some wild difference between the two. One was obvious about his intentions to walk all over our Constitution, the other only masked his intentions. I can provide you with a list their very similar anti-Constitutional stances if you would like?

I believe the problem is that too many are willing to vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for evil whether its a little evil or a lot evil. If you are willing to go against your principles and vote for a lesser evil then that is your decision, but please don’t criticize me for voting for the candidate who I believe would have been best to protect and defent the Constitution.

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 12:36 PM

If only Paul had wrapped up as follows…

“Well, I take my leave. Both Congress and the nation are pretty much in exactly the same state as if I’d never been here…

“I never led nor helped build a coalition, nor helped roll back a government agency, nor did anything significant to cut taxes…

“Election time, I kind of disappeared when the main target should have been Obama…

“I did spend a lot of time in the media trashing impure ‘conservatives’, so I may have accomplished something there…

“You know, looking back, I’m not sure if my way was really worth doing at all…

Now that’s a Ron Paul farewell address that I could get behind!

shinty on November 15, 2012 at 12:43 PM

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I’m not laying a trap. It’s a reasonable quesion, considering you brought the point up as one of your disagreements with Ron Paul (I believe you then called him a “little man”). I believe you don’t have a good answer, so you’re dodging an honest response. I gave you the right answer. The answer is we protect Americans.

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 12:43 PM

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Sorry, dom, it’s a trap when you ask a question and then you have supply the answer yourself in order to refute YOUR answer. It was a trap, or you wouldn’t have had to supply to answer to continue it.

Either way, I’m through with all of this. It’s useless and a time waster. I have people coming to my house today and I’ve got work to do.

I enjoy a good debate, but an honest one (with everyone). I see the games being played, and I don’t play games. It’s a waste of time. The goal isn’t to come to a conclusion, but for a “payoff”, rather than new information.
Look up: Games that People Play by Dr. Eric Berne.

And, yes, I am qualified.

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM

The problem is you actually believe their was some wild difference between the two. One was obvious about his intentions to walk all over our Constitution, the other only masked his intentions. I can provide you with a list their very similar anti-Constitutional stances if you would like?

I believe the problem is that too many are willing to vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for evil whether its a little evil or a lot evil. If you are willing to go against your principles and vote for a lesser evil then that is your decision, but please don’t criticize me for voting for the candidate who I believe would have been best to protect and defent the Constitution.

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Oh, for pete’s sake, grow up. See, this is the problem with you people… you think you’ve got some sort of moral high-ground to tell the rest of us what’s what, a monopoly on the founding philosophy as it were, but you don’t.

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

–Thomas Paine

Government itself is a “necessary evil”, so logically you are ALWAYS engaged in a choice of the lesser one. Government is essentially FORCE. That’s the evil of its nature. And yet, without it, civilization isn’t civilized.

You guys stood on the sidelines, glaring down at the rest of us from your lofty, self-aggrandized perches… and you were WRONG. You didn’t know what Mitt Romney could’ve been. You didn’t have some magic crystal ball with which to see the future before you helped the left to deny him a chance. But you knew darned well what Obama was. And you couldn’t be bothered to gather up the testicular fortitude to even slow him down.

I find myself as disgusted by those who sat on their hands in this election as I am with the grasping, parasitic left. They are UTTERLY ignorant, but libertarians are not. You KNEW what this country was facing and why it was wrong, but rather than impede the certain constitutional lawlessness that we’d already seen, you made the same pathetic emotional choice as every other useless moron who voted for Obama. No logic involved.

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Both of you are using the logical fallacy of simplification and exaggeration to try to make your points on this one issue.

Not playin’. ಠ_ಠ

Sorry your guy is gone. I’m guessing you all will have to find another person to defend and have endless discussions over.

(Notice still that neither of you have mentioned the other facts that I posted. But, focused on this one part. Again. Simplication and exaggeration.)

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 12:26 PM

What’s being simplified or exaggerated? You are clearly in favor of U.S. interventionism into WWII, which required forcing Americans into service and putting their lives at risk, and you framed it around saving the Jews. That also required the forecful and coercive seizure of property to fund it. You called Paul a little man and a complete and utter fool for opposing it. Interventionism is the foreign policy of progressivism, and WWII is a result of our interventionism into WWI.

Just because you are unable and unwilling to address a counterargument doesn’t mean people are using logical fallacies or laying a trap for you. It simply means you’re evading the points because your little worldview is challenged.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM

There’s a reason why Paul got some 2% of the media’s “attention” during the primaries. Great speech, though I’m not sure it would all fit on his tombstone.

ahlaphus on November 15, 2012 at 1:04 PM

If only Paul had wrapped up as follows…

“Well, I take my leave. Both Congress and the nation are pretty much in exactly the same state as if I’d never been here…

“I never led nor helped build a coalition, nor helped roll back a government agency, nor did anything significant to cut taxes…

“Election time, I kind of disappeared when the main target should have been Obama…

“I did spend a lot of time in the media trashing impure ‘conservatives’, so I may have accomplished something there…

“You know, looking back, I’m not sure if my way was really worth doing at all…

Now that’s a Ron Paul farewell address that I could get behind!

shinty on November 15, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Exactly so. And the part that really bugs me now is that I once had such great respect for that guy. I didn’t always agree with him, but I loved it that he was talking about the Constitution and Liberty. Like many, I was willing to overlook his utter lack of a coherent foreign policy and pass it off to eccentricity. But after this election, he just looks like a nutter to me.

I had great hopes for the libertarian movement. But it has proved itself to be nothing but fringe.

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM

My point is when you have a candidate that stands for the Constitution and bases all of his reasoning on the Constitution, that is the candidate who is best in my opinion. To vote for a candidate who stands for policies that violate the Constitution is no better than the other guy who stands for policies that violate the Constitution. So if you think that I come off as standing on “moral high-ground” for that opinion, then so be it. The fact of the matter is that Romeny is leading us down the same road. This government is in need of a major intervention. Romney would not provide that intervention. I believe Paul could have.

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Romeny is leading us

meant to say “Romney would have led us”

*You only need to look at his past actions and current positions.

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 1:20 PM

You guys stood on the sidelines, glaring down at the rest of us from your lofty, self-aggrandized perches… and you were WRONG. You didn’t know what Mitt Romney could’ve been. You didn’t have some magic crystal ball with which to see the future before you helped the left to deny him a chance. But you knew darned well what Obama was. And you couldn’t be bothered to gather up the testicular fortitude to even slow him down.

I find myself as disgusted by those who sat on their hands in this election as I am with the grasping, parasitic left. They are UTTERLY ignorant, but libertarians are not. You KNEW what this country was facing and why it was wrong, but rather than impede the certain constitutional lawlessness that we’d already seen, you made the same pathetic emotional choice as every other useless moron who voted for Obama. No logic involved.

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM

To anyone who can look at the past 60 years of presidents, we can say we know exactly what Romney would have been.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Now that’s a Ron Paul farewell address that I could get behind!

shinty on November 15, 2012 at 12:43 PM

You hit the nail right upon it’s head. But I think everyone has to admit, trying to paddle a rowboat up Niagara Falls is pretty darn difficult.

ButterflyDragon on November 15, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Murf76, I asked a couple questions to some other commenter’s earlier and have yet to receive a response. Maybe you would like to share your opinion. I’m not trying to be smart here, I’m truly curious. Which politician in your opinion places a higher regard for the Constitution than Ron Paul? Which politician has a better voting record than Ron Paul? Which politician would be less likely to start a new federal government program than Ron Paul?

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM

The facts of the 20th century invalidate Dr. Paul’s “no intervention” stance. Had we not stood against Hitler, he would have amassed a military large enough to come for us. This idea that we only fight to defend our borders is ridiculous in this day and age, especially with the advent of ICBMs. Your enemies can bomb you without ever getting a ship or soldier near your shores. That is why I agree with Dr. Paul on most everything outside of foreign policy.
Odysseus on November 15, 2012 at 6:32 AM

“Invalidate”? Really? Read your history concerning U.S. involvement in the countries that I’d listed and tell me whether they’ve made us more or less safe, that they’ve achieved our stated military and, more importantly, political objectives. And you mention Nazi Germany: yeah, they declared war on us. That would meet the jus ad bellum threshold for war under Ron Paul’s view. And ICBMs? Strategic bombing capabilities? Are you seriously suggesting that Ron Paul is against having offensive and defensive strategic forces? That is ridiculous.

Send_Me on November 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM

but there are also a heck of a lot on which I most vociferously would agree: Limited government, sticking to the Constitution, federalism, free markets, fiscal solvency, classical liberalism, free speech; he knows how to talk a great game on that front.

I think Paul would say that Conservatives are a bit off the mark in embracing what he said – since what he said goes against what BOTH political parties practice and even what Conservatives themselves believe.

Paul talked about Liberty and a small government.

Conservatives and Liberals – DO NOT BELIEVE – in liberty. They do not believe in the concept that each man is his own soveriegn. If they did – they wouldn’t insist on having a government that gets involved in “marriage”. They would not insist on government getting involved to “prohibit” voluntary sexual unions between consenting adults (prostitution). They would not insist that government PROHIBIT a man from using marijuana while PROTECTING their right to consume alcohol.

The only difference between Conservatives and Liberals – aside from some fiscal issues – is in the activities they each want to PROHIBIT.

So don’t think Paul was embracing the “Conservative Ideal” of limited government – he most certainly was not because you guys believe in a government much larger than the one Paul (and I) believe in.

By the way – call me a “Ronulan” if you will – even though I didn’t vote for the guy in the primaries and think his ideas on foreign affairs are batsh!t lunacy.

HondaV65 on November 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I prefer Paultards to Santorum SoCons

Slade73 on November 14, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Is there such a thing as a Santorum Socon? THere are HUckabee Socon’s, Palin So cons, DeMint So con’s, once upon a time – Buchannen So Cons … But Santorum was just the ABR who was a Socon. He wasn’t the head of a movement like Paul.

BoxHead1 on November 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM

socons not socon’s

BoxHead1 on November 15, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Social conservatism is an absolute requirement for fiscal conservatism. Single mothers are going to vote for their sugar daddy Uncle Sam. Liberals promote progressive policies because that is what gives them power through the electoral process and the Soviets pushed that same agenda for the same reasons.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:04 PM

As a single mother, I want to let you know that I have not only not asked the government to help me raise my child, I have not asked the father. I have done it by myself, and I have always voted Republican. I’m sure I’m not alone.

Night Owl on November 15, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Conservatives and Liberals<– DO NOT BELIEVE – in liberty anarchy.

HondaV65 on November 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM

At a closer level of government (one not as distant as the federal), the voting citizens should be able decide the level of some government regulation and even guidance. If the overwhelming majority in LA want to ban smoking cigarettes in public spaces then have at it, as long as our freedom of movement is not infringed upon. It’s not a libertarian in (say) Cleveland’s business.

The problem isn’t bloomberg’s soda bans in NYC – that’s just stupid local stuff – it’s that he is spearheading a national(mooche)/federal executive’s bully pullpit. THe feds have no business handing dictats to local government.

Either way, many (most)communities don’t want to allow cocaine smoking and heroine use in public places and they will not be convinced by a libertarian argument. Junkies are not pleasant to be around .

BoxHead1 on November 15, 2012 at 3:16 PM

BoxHead1 on November 15, 2012 at 3:16 PM

That was a strange edit of his sentence.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 3:23 PM

BoxHead1 on November 15, 2012 at 3:16 PM

That was a strange edit of his sentence.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Yes, it was awkward.

I’m not a professional commenter yet. This is practice for when I hit the FOX site.

BoxHead1 on November 15, 2012 at 3:39 PM

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Religious prophesy is not a sound basis for foreign policy. If you believe it is, you share more in common with the leadership of Israel’s arch-enemy Iran, than with me.

Kungfoochimp on November 15, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Social conservatism is an absolute requirement for fiscal conservatism. Single mothers are going to vote for their sugar daddy Uncle Sam. Liberals promote progressive policies because that is what gives them power through the electoral process and the Soviets pushed that same agenda for the same reasons.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:04 PM

As a single mother, I want to let you know that I have not only not asked the government to help me raise my child, I have not asked the father. I have done it by myself, and I have always voted Republican. I’m sure I’m not alone.

Night Owl on November 15, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Sharrukin is a moron, ignore him.

rndmusrnm on November 15, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Better yet, how about we let the states set the laws? Give them a bloc grant and let THEM decide how to spend the money (with the proviso that it be spent on the actual programs).

PappyD61 on November 14, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Why a block grant? How about just cut the program and let the states deal with it themselves? If you have to designate the money freed up, designate it to go the debt.

cptacek on November 15, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Can someone check with MADD to see if they’ll suck it?

Why the hell should they have any more say over public policy than anyone else?

JohnGalt23 on November 14, 2012 at 9:36 PM

+1

cptacek on November 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM

If the GOP or people on this site who claim to be conservatives actually supported those things, they would be THRILLED at the prospect of ending the federal war on drugs and would NEVER advocate for a federal ban for gay marriage. They would be calling for drastic reductions to ALL government, not just welfare and social issues.

thphilli on November 14, 2012 at 9:40 PM

The support for a federal ban on gay unions-trying-but-failing-to-be-marriages is to counter the push from the left that if one state approves it, the rest of the states have to accept it as well. If each state could be sure that they control marriage in their own state, there would be no push to ban it at the federal level.

cptacek on November 15, 2012 at 4:49 PM

If only Paul had wrapped up as follows…

“Well, I take my leave. Both Congress and the nation are pretty much in exactly the same state as if I’d never been here…

“I never led nor helped build a coalition, nor helped roll back a government agency, nor did anything significant to cut taxes…

“Election time, I kind of disappeared when the main target should have been Obama…

“I did spend a lot of time in the media trashing impure ‘conservatives’, so I may have accomplished something there…

“You know, looking back, I’m not sure if my way was really worth doing at all…

Now that’s a Ron Paul farewell address that I could get behind!

shinty on November 15, 2012 at 12:43 PM

lol, nice :)

cptacek on November 15, 2012 at 4:50 PM

That’s the uninformed view. Earmarks, which are called pork, is good. They let us know how our seized tax dollars are being spent. We should have every single penny earmarked, otherwise some faceless nameless bureaucrat in the Executive Branch gets to spend it however he wishes, and we’d have no idea where it went.

As you know, the people have Representatives, who serve as the voice of the people to the federal government. The federal government seizes our money through taxation, which is one of Congress’ granted Constituitonal powers. That money is in turn spent by Congress throughout the Union. Is it not right that people solicit their Representative to get their money returned to their district? That’s what happens. As Representative, Paul puts in his constituents’ requests, telling them up front that he’ll be voting against it because he believes the budget and spending are too high. Appropriations bills, where these earmarks are found, are not budget bills; the dollar amount to be spent has already been decided.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Did he ever earmark anything other than money going to his district? If “every single penny [should be ]earmarked, otherwise some faceless nameless bureaucrat in the Executive Branch gets to spend it however he wishes, and we’d have no idea where it went” then did he ever do that? Earmark every penny? Or just money to his own district?

cptacek on November 15, 2012 at 4:53 PM

It’s also sort of sad that you forget that Ron Paul chose to be a politician in the government. I always wondered why, if he didn’t believe it was a worthwhile endavour.

Deanna on November 14, 2012 at 9:56 PM

I doubt you will read this, but I think it’s worth saying anyways.

First of all, “wanting” to do something and whether or not that something is a “worthwile endeavour” are not at all the same. There are things we all do every day in our lives that we may not “want” to do but we believe they are worthwhile endeavours, so we do them.

You seem to be wondering why someone who apparently doesn’t want to be a politican would chose to be a politican. In fact, those are exactly the kinds of politicians the founders of this nation wanted. If you read any of their memoirs, journals, letters, or biographies you would find that most of them did not “want” to be politicians but did feel that it was their duty as well as a “worthwhile endeavour”. Almost to a person, they spoke against the concept of “career politicians” and described them as anathema to our form of government. They consistently warned the populace to be wary of those who wanted to be politicians. They almost never spoke about politicians making up our Congressional Houses, instead referring to them as “citizen legislators”, because those are the people they wanted to run our federal government.

Frankly, I wish every politician would go to Washington with the idea that it was both a worthwhile endeavour and a loathesome duty to be undertaken but not desired.

gravityman on November 15, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Ron Paul’s legacy is immeasurable. He’s done more than he knows and to those who hate him, more than they want to admit. His final speech, which is a long intellectual and intelligent 18 page manifesto on his career, goals and beliefs – has over 250k views on YouTube in a day. This is not an entertainment video. This is not a pollster driven speech. This is a substantive, thought provoking and philosophical speech in support of liberty and yet it gets out there. We’re talking about, arguing about his ideas almost every week on this website and others. He has his son in the Senate, new liberty congressmen like Thomas Massie taking his place. Pot legalization and gay marriage (state) legalization are becoming more commonplace after years of Paul wanting to get the federal government out of both in order to legalize freedom. The GOP lost the election because it cannot appeal to essentially big cities/urban areas. Ron Paul’s philosophy of liberty, limited government, free choice, and non-militarism are the answers to winning the big cities going forward. If only the GOP could understand that it’s inconsistent (if not illogical) to preach about reducing spending, while at the same time advocate that we police the world. Policing the world is not cheap. Being a war hawk is expensive.

A lot of people who’re incapable of defending liberty in all instances consider Paul a “kook”. The only reason he’s kooky to them is because he dares to follow his beliefs and principles and where they take him on policy in all instances. They cannot do this, so all they have left is to insult and name-call like a 10 year old on a message board. They’ve accomplished nothing with their years and years of supporting the same status-quo candidates like John McCain, Mitt Romney, George Bush and Barrack Obama. You’d think after being witness to the destruction of “establishment, non-kooky” mainstream politicians they’d be ready for a little crazy. Nah. They gotta get ready to support the next moderate tyrannist. All that matters to the GOP today is war. If a candidate supports war, anywhere and with anyone named a terrorist, then they’ll support them. Irrespective of the damages their policies may do to this country, the military or how it may motivate future acts of terror against us. IF THE GOP WANTS TO WIN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AGAIN, IT MUST RETURN TO IT’S NON-INTERVENTIONIST ROOTS AND INSTEAD PROMOTE FREEDOM AND LIBERTY (AT THE STATE LEVEL) ON SOCIAL ISSUES. This is the way forward, if they could process and cry over 9/11 maybe then they’d see it? I’m not going to hold my breath.

fatlibertarianinokc on November 15, 2012 at 5:01 PM

The support for a federal ban on gay unions-trying-but-failing-to-be-marriages is to counter the push from the left that if one state approves it, the rest of the states have to accept it as well. If each state could be sure that they control marriage in their own state, there would be no push to ban it at the federal level.

cptacek on November 15, 2012 at 4:49 PM

That’s called the full faith and credit clause. You can find it in Article IV, Section 1 of your Constitution.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 5:03 PM

His accomplishment is saying “no” to government.

uhh, that didn’t really have any effect, did it?

shinty on November 15, 2012 at 12:26 PM

So, he should not have done it? I’m not sure what your point is. If something may be right, yet futile, then you just shouldn’t bother trying?

I believe our country never would have been founded in that case.

gravityman on November 15, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Gravityman, years of voting for the lessor of two evils has distorted both their thinking. They actually view a congressman who spent his entire life advocating for the the principles they claimed to believe in – as a failure.

Why? Because HE DID NOT water down, sell out or become a corrupt politician in order to “get things done”. Sometimes people amaze me. The GOP cheated the Paul campaign and treated them like shiet. The blowback came on election day and now they’re sore. Once again they’re learning the lesson of blowback. One of these day’s they’ll learn.

THE GOP LOST THIS ELECTION BECAUSE THEY NOMINATED MITT ROMNEY.

PURE AND SIMPLE.

fatlibertarianinokc on November 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Murf76, I asked a couple questions to some other commenter’s earlier and have yet to receive a response. Maybe you would like to share your opinion. I’m not trying to be smart here, I’m truly curious. Which politician in your opinion places a higher regard for the Constitution than Ron Paul? Which politician has a better voting record than Ron Paul? Which politician would be less likely to start a new federal government program than Ron Paul?

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM

And I’m sure they probably told you the same thing that I’m going to… Ron Paul had no shot at winning. THAT’s the problem. In this election only one of two men was going to be the president, either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. It frankly doesn’t matter a bit if you love the Constitution if you’re in no position to protect it. If you’re not willing to preserve as much of it as you can, then it’s just lip service.

There are any number of good men and women serving in Congress that DO have more love for the Constitution than Ron Paul, and I’m talking about every one of them who supported Mitt Romney’s candidacy as an impediment to Barack Obama and the left. Every one of them who got in Obama’s way loves our founding philosophy better than those who couldn’t be bothered.

I’m sorry if you don’t like hearing that, but reality is about results. And the results are that libertarians sat on their butts and let Barack Obama waltz back into office where he will spend the next four years preying upon our Liberty and remaking our highest court in his own image. So, if that’s Ron Paul’s version of libertarianism, who needs it? Good riddance, indeed.

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM

There are any number of good men and women serving in Congress that DO have more love for the Constitution than Ron Paul, and I’m talking about every one of them who supported Mitt Romney’s candidacy…

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Now that’s funny.

Er, that was meant to be funny, right?

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM

My point is when you have a candidate that stands for the Constitution and bases all of his reasoning on the Constitution, that is the candidate who is best in my opinion. To vote for a candidate who stands for policies that violate the Constitution is no better than the other guy who stands for policies that violate the Constitution. So if you think that I come off as standing on “moral high-ground” for that opinion, then so be it. The fact of the matter is that Romeny is leading us down the same road. This government is in need of a major intervention. Romney would not provide that intervention. I believe Paul could have.

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Jesus. You guys couldn’t HANDLE a “major intervention”. You couldn’t even get off you duffs to slow down a guy who had just put a sixth of our economy under his thumb, one whose last Supreme Court nominee isn’t too sure she can’t force-feed you your broccoli. By your math, Vladamir Putin could’ve got himself elected in this country without any interference from libertarians… just so long as he was running against Mitt Romney. Do you people even know how bizarre you sound?

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Jesus. You guys couldn’t HANDLE a “major intervention”. You couldn’t even get off you duffs to slow down a guy who had just put a sixth of our economy under his thumb, one whose last Supreme Court nominee isn’t too sure she can’t force-feed you your broccoli. By your math, Vladamir Putin could’ve got himself elected in this country without any interference from libertarians… just so long as he was running against Mitt Romney. Do you people even know how bizarre you sound?

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Why do you assume we didn’t vote?

Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 5:40 PM

I’m sorry if you don’t like hearing that, but reality is about results. And the results are that libertarians sat on their butts and let Barack Obama waltz back into office where he will spend the next four years preying upon our Liberty and remaking our highest court in his own image. So, if that’s Ron Paul’s version of libertarianism, who needs it? Good riddance, indeed.

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM

For some libertarians, that may actually be working as intended.

The GOP has shown NO interest whatsoever in limiting government. They talk about it, but they rarely ever vote that way (they are politicians afterall, and our current system of career politicians and lobbyists encourages bigger government). They just vote for a bit slower growth of government than the Dems. So maybe it’s time to let the Dems (and their liberal voter base) just run the ship aground at full steam ahead, and then maybe people will get a clue that it doesnt work and we can get back to true Constitutionally limited government the way it was meant to be. Frankly, I don’t think the politicians in either party will actually reverse course towards that ideal until it is forced upon them by the complete and utter crash of the economy. May as well get there full steam ahead so that it can be (a) firmly demonstrated what crap big government economic policies are and (b) we can start picking up the pieces that much sooner.

gravityman on November 15, 2012 at 5:54 PM

That’s called the full faith and credit clause. You can find it in Article IV, Section 1 of your Constitution.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Then you understand why there is a push for a federal solution.

cptacek on November 15, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Then you understand why there is a push for a federal solution.

cptacek on November 15, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Solution implies there is a problem that needs solving. There isn’t one.

But yes, I understand that there is a push to attack liberty and impose tyranny over people.

You should read Paul’s farewell address; it’s meant for someone like you.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 6:06 PM

For some libertarians, that may actually be working as intended.

The GOP has shown NO interest whatsoever in limiting government. They talk about it, but they rarely ever vote that way (they are politicians afterall, and our current system of career politicians and lobbyists encourages bigger government). They just vote for a bit slower growth of government than the Dems. So maybe it’s time to let the Dems (and their liberal voter base) just run the ship aground at full steam ahead, and then maybe people will get a clue that it doesnt work and we can get back to true Constitutionally limited government the way it was meant to be. Frankly, I don’t think the politicians in either party will actually reverse course towards that ideal until it is forced upon them by the complete and utter crash of the economy. May as well get there full steam ahead so that it can be (a) firmly demonstrated what crap big government economic policies are and (b) we can start picking up the pieces that much sooner.

gravityman on November 15, 2012 at 5:54 PM

And yet, those particular libertarians are shocked, I tell you SHOCKED that they’re referred to as crackpots. What you just described is completely demented. Only spoiled little princesses who’d never known a day of want would think it a fine plan to “run the ship aground”. It sounds like the sort of tripe we typically associate with such notable leftists as Cloward and Piven.

This isn’t a joke. These people mean to stick the heads of my children in their economic yoke. I take that seriously. I would’ve thought that people who profess a love of this country’s founding philosophy would take it seriously as well. But instead, they would rather play some dimwitted game of “chicken” with our future.

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Dr. Paul said many things that needed to be said while in Congress, and for that and despite his inadequacies, I am grateful.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 15, 2012 at 6:44 PM

But yes, I understand that there is a push to attack liberty and impose tyranny over people.

You should read Paul’s farewell address; it’s meant for someone like you.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 6:06 PM

You forgot a word, there, Dante. Perhaps if you had said:

But yes, I understand that there is a push to attack religious liberty and impose tyranny over people.

you would better understand my position.

cptacek on November 15, 2012 at 7:01 PM

And yet, those particular libertarians are shocked, I tell you SHOCKED that they’re referred to as crackpots.

“Crackpots” would be a major improvement over what you drooling dittoheads call us, more often than not breaking Godwin’s Law all over the place.

What you just described is completely demented. Only spoiled little princesses who’d never known a day of want would think it a fine plan to “run the ship aground”. It sounds like the sort of tripe we typically associate with such notable leftists as Cloward and Piven.

So I guess that means ALL the posters – some of them very staunch conservatives – posting “L.I.B.” (“let it burn” for a semiliterate oaf like you) are all ‘spoiled little princesses’. What brilliant logic.

Why don’t you just shut up and go back to playing with your tea party, Lacy-Pants, before everyone from trolltards to Allah and Ed sees what a complete moron you are.

This isn’t a joke. These people mean to stick the heads of my children in their economic yoke. I take that seriously.

Well no duh!!! And so do we Captain Denseoid, but things have finally gotten so bad that people are asking we crash and start over again rather than watch the slow painful decline drag on.

But instead, they would rather play some dimwitted game of “chicken” with our future.

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 6:30 PM

I ask you once and for all – who do you think is PLAYING?!?

MelonCollie on November 15, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Murf – if you really don’t understand why people are saying this, I direct you to this quote.

MelonCollie on November 15, 2012 at 8:15 PM

You forgot a word, there, Dante. Perhaps if you had said:

you would better understand my position.

cptacek on November 15, 2012 at 7:01 PM

I didn’t forget any word. You are attacking liberty, not religious liberty. I understand your position perfectly.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 8:18 PM

I don’t agree with him on everything

Could anyone list all the politicians that they do agree on 100% of issues.

livermush on November 15, 2012 at 9:32 PM

I didn’t forget any word. You are attacking liberty, not religious liberty. I understand your position perfectly.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 8:18 PM

My position defends religious liberty, which is also guaranteed in the Constitution.

cptacek on November 16, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Who cares what he says? Paul and his loony followers are pretty much Obama voters by default and deserve the same levels of respect.

TonyR on November 16, 2012 at 12:49 AM

The problem is you actually believe their was some wild difference between the two.

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 12:36 PM

And THERE we have it… the reason why people can’t take Paul and his movement seriously. If you think for even a minute that Mitt Romney was the problem, ignoring the in-your-face hostility Barack Obama has ALREADY displayed toward such quaint issues as Individual Liberty, you can’t be surprised if you’re dismissed as crackpots.

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 12:26 PM

The funny thing is… the former post is actually a reply to the latter.

CanofSand on November 16, 2012 at 6:39 AM

The facts of the 20th century invalidate Dr. Paul’s “no intervention” stance. Had we not stood against Hitler, he would have amassed a military large enough to come for us.

Riiiight. Because Russia was in no wise a factor in Hitler’s defeat.

The most starry-eyed fools in “conservative” circles are not the “Paulbots”; they are, rather, the members of the anti-Paul coalition.

Also, perpetual war is the most puerile, unworkable, stupid, and counterproductive foreign policy that a nation could have. It is also the prime tool for dismantling individual liberty. Attacking third-world nations does not “keep us safe”, because third-world nations do not truly threaten us. The Federal Government that proposes to protect us from third world nations, however, is a real and imminent and persistent threat to our liberties.

The starry-eyed fools who compose the anti-Paul coalition are like a woman who, in order to protect herself from potential burglars, invites a known serial killer to move in with her.

cavalier973 on November 16, 2012 at 8:35 AM

CanofSand on November 16, 2012 at 6:39 AM

George H.W. Bush Bill Clinton George W. Bush Barack Obama has ALREADY displayed toward such quaint issues as Individual Liberty

dom89031 on November 16, 2012 at 12:32 PM

This isn’t a joke. These people mean to stick the heads of my children in their economic yoke. I take that seriously. I would’ve thought that people who profess a love of this country’s founding philosophy would take it seriously as well. But instead, they would rather play some dimwitted game of “chicken” with our future.

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Question for you then…

You say those libertarians are mean and want to stick the heads of your children in their economic yoke. Yet, I am left to wonder what evidence you have seen that either the GOP or Dems are not going to get your kids into that same noose?

gravityman on November 16, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Paul’s headed back to Texas to run for President of the first state to reach the 25,000 signature mark on a petition to seceed from the union. They were a sovereign nation once and could do it again. Their biggest problem would be keeping the rest of the producers out.

Wish him luck. I do.

NoPain on November 17, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Paul’s headed back to Texas to run for President of the first state to reach the 25,000 signature mark on a petition to seceed from the union. They were a sovereign nation once and could do it again. Their biggest problem would be keeping the rest of the producers out.

Wish him luck. I do.

NoPain on November 17, 2012 at 1:32 AM

LOL, I think you mean keeping the TAKERS out, but I get what you mean.

And you know what?

If that did happen and Texas was able to survive the initial bumpiness intact, I’d bet my life savings you’d see hundreds if not thousands of “derp-derp evul raycist Joo h8r” conservatives heading for the new nation so fast they’d leave vapor trails.

MelonCollie on November 17, 2012 at 11:11 PM

dom89031 on November 16, 2012 at 12:32 PM

You only prove my point. George H. W. Bush no different than Obama? You’re a nutter.

CanofSand on November 19, 2012 at 1:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4