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

NUTS!

KOOLAID2 on November 14, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Three cheer for the cause…
…good riddance to the Paul-tards.

Glenn Jericho on November 14, 2012 at 8:49 PM

…he has a son…whose not bad!

KOOLAID2 on November 14, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Well, bye.

Kooky old bigot.

FlatFoot on November 14, 2012 at 8:49 PM

I think I read he spoke for 48 minutes.

CoffeeLover on November 14, 2012 at 8:51 PM

…threads too early for Floating Crock…isn’t it?

KOOLAID2 on November 14, 2012 at 8:54 PM

The army of Paulbots will not be missed.

I sincerely hope they fade away, but somehow I doubt it.

Nessuno on November 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM

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?”

Well, we just did nominate John McCain and Mitt Romney as the the protectors of liberty.

Soooo. . .yeah.

Notorious GOP on November 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM

For all that Paul had an Obamaesk following of disciples, that never translated into the kind of ground game he needed to win a primary, let alone a general election.
Seriously, we need to work on that ground game, guys.

Count to 10 on November 14, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Not a fan of Ron Paul but there is no question that he makes some very good points and that is never a bad thing. I agree with him on limited government and fiscal responsibility.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:58 PM

I prefer Paultards to Santorum SoCons

Slade73 on November 14, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Rand Paul…..YOU WILL BE disappointed.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/trending/2012/11/14/rand_paul_on_drugs_immigration_kentucky_senator_pushes_libertarian_views.html

Call it the evolution of the revolution.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one of the darlings of the Tea Party, is showing signs of moderation in the wake of the GOP’s disappointing showing in the 2012 presidential and Senate elections.

In an interview with Politico, Paul said he wants to find a compromise on immigration reform that includes “an eventual path” to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, joining a chorus of Republicans looking to broaden the party’s appeal beyond white voters.

Paul also said he wants to work with Democrats to push for a softening of mandatory minimum sentencing on certain illegal drug offenses. Which, of course, is consistent with his libertarian leanings, and happens to play well with younger voters—another category the GOP has failed to reach in recent elections. As his father, Ron Paul, retires, we can now officially begin the speculation about Rand for president in 2016.


When SLATE magazine praises you…….YOU’RE NOT ONE OF US.

PappyD61 on November 14, 2012 at 9:00 PM

The army of Paulbots will not be missed.

I sincerely hope they fade away, but somehow I doubt it.

Nessuno on November 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM

…they’ll be living here…the progressive people are not as tolerant…so where they gonna go?

KOOLAID2 on November 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Not a fan of Ron Paul but there is no question that he makes some very good points and that is never a bad thing. I agree with him on limited government and fiscal responsibility.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Unfortunately, the social cons are the ones controlling the message.

Notorious GOP on November 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM

I will never understand why some on the right will demonize Ron Paul and his supporters. More now then ever you need all the liberty minded people you can get in order to combat the left. If we do not unite under a common message of liberty and fiscal responsibility, the left will have won the culture war for several generations.

cjv209 on November 14, 2012 at 9:02 PM

There are a fair few issues over which I would heartily disagree with longtime Rep. Ron Paul

I’m curious which issues those would be. If it’s foreign policy or defense spending, then I recommend you read Rollback by Thomas Woods, and hopefully you’ll see that military spending does not equal defense.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Not sure why you bothered posting the video, while writing only about your reaction to the speech, as the majority of the chattering class won’t stop to listen to it – they’ll just post some snarky knee-jerk reaction comments that insult Paul’s supporters. Some quotes for context would have been quite helpful.

To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.

The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.

angelat0763 on November 14, 2012 at 9:04 PM

PappyD61 on November 14, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Rand wants/wanted to reduce mandatory minimums on the new class of drugs that was just outlawed, specifically something called synthetic pot or something like that.

He’s against the drug war, and I have to say, that is not a crazy or untenable position. The expansion of the drug war has done nothing to help conservationism, and has undermined it at every turn.

And yes, he’s bad on immigration, but so was Romney, McCain, Dole, and both Bushes. I guess I’m used to it.

Nessuno on November 14, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Not a fan of Ron Paul but there is no question that he makes some very good points and that is never a bad thing. I agree with him on limited government and fiscal responsibility.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Unfortunately, the social cons are the ones controlling the message.

Notorious GOP on November 14, 2012 at 9:01 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

cjv209 on November 14, 2012 at 9:02 PM

they don’t call it the Stupid Party for nothing

Slade73 on November 14, 2012 at 9:04 PM

A fond farewell to Ron Paul, loyal supporter of the Constitution.

David Blue on November 14, 2012 at 9:04 PM

NUTS!

KOOLAID2 on November 14, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Let’s see. You, apparently, don’t possess enough intelligence to address anything directly related to this post and yet you call Paul nuts.

antifederalist on November 14, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Unfortunately, the social cons are the ones controlling the message.

Notorious GOP on November 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Yes Romney and Paul were all over the social conservative messaging during the campaign …./sarc

…………………………………You and your ilk are idiots.

CW on November 14, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Death to welfare and warfare state! I don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything, but he’s certainly right there. The Federal Reserve System as well as the progressive tax system set the foundation for the massive bureaucracy we’ve been saddled with. And sadly this mindless exuberance has carried over to our foreign policy.

Pitchforker on November 14, 2012 at 9:06 PM

I like how people here will praise a liberal like Romney and will turn around a mock an actual conservative with principles like Ron Paul. This is a site for conservatives right?

ModerateMan on November 14, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Goodbye and good riddance to Herr Doktor, his bigotry and hypocrisy will not be missed, nor will his cultists.

I have high hopes for his son though, all the fiscal goodness with only a hint of the crazy…we shall see.

Rogue on November 14, 2012 at 9:07 PM

sharrukin: “Social conservatism is an absolute requirement for fiscal conservatism. Single mothers are going to vote for their sugar daddy Uncle Sam.

That’s right.

And so are groups that profit from affirmative action, disparate impact lawsuits and so on.

David Blue on November 14, 2012 at 9:07 PM

When SLATE magazine praises you…….YOU’RE NOT ONE OF US.

PappyD61 on November 14, 2012 at 9:00 PM

So it’s just us versus them. No thought is required.

antifederalist on November 14, 2012 at 9:07 PM

This thread should be a hoot.

wolly4321 on November 14, 2012 at 9:08 PM

sharrukin: “Social conservatism is an absolute requirement for fiscal conservatism. Single mothers are going to vote for their sugar daddy Uncle Sam.

That’s right.

And so are groups that profit from affirmative action, disparate impact lawsuits and so on.

David Blue on November 14, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Yup. People tend to vote their paycheck.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM

antifederalist on November 14, 2012 at 9:04 PM

…well here’s a highly intelligent response to you….Fluke You!

KOOLAID2 on November 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Goodbye and good riddance to Herr Doktor, his bigotry and hypocrisy will not be missed, nor will his cultists.

I have high hopes for his son though, all the fiscal goodness with only a hint of the crazy…we shall see.

Rogue on November 14, 2012 at 9:07 PM

He is neither a bigot nor a hypocrite.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Republicans are no longer conservative, so I don’t see it as “eating their own” when they slander a man like Ron Paul or his supporters.

Slade73 on November 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

The army of Paulbots will not be missed.

I sincerely hope they fade away, but somehow I doubt it.

Nessuno on November 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Organizing around the Junior Senator from Kentucky, as we speak.

Early to bed
Early to rise
Work like Hell
And Organize…

JohnGalt23 on November 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

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

Actually…Dennis Kucinich.

I am am not impressed. Ron Paul is in love with pork and the spotlight, nothing else.

Deanna on November 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Yes Romney and Paul were all over the social conservative messaging during the campaign …./sarc

…………………………………You and your ilk are idiots.

CW on November 14, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Rick Santorum was the next best option behind a guy who had the ‘best chance’ to beat Obama. No one really wanted to vote for Mitt.

If any of the so called conservatives really cared about our financial situation, the last two people you’d nominate are Rick BLEEPING Santorum and Mitt Romney.

Notorious GOP on November 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

The army of Paulbots will not be missed.

I sincerely hope they fade away, but somehow I doubt it.

Nessuno on November 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I said to my girlfriend the other day that I bet they will keep writing his name in after he passes away.

thebrokenrattle on November 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Nuts!

Bishop on November 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM

…well here’s a highly intelligent response to you….Fluke You!

KOOLAID2 on November 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM

For an orangutan I guess that would be considered to an intelligent response. Good for you!!!

antifederalist on November 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM

The comments on this page show why the GOP has lost support in the last few years. The right cannibalizes their own allies while the Democrats embraces their factions. While I do think the democrats are wrong on most issues, they are masters at branding themselves.

cjv209 on November 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM

I said to my girlfriend the other day that I bet they will keep writing his name in after he passes away.

thebrokenrattle on November 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

And we’ll keep nominating schmucks like McCain and Mitt.

Notorious GOP on November 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Did Ron actually write that speech or just sign his name at the bottom?

Bishop on November 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Did Ron actually write that speech or just sign his name at the bottom?

Bishop on November 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Knowing him, he probably wrote every word of it, on loose leaf paper…

JohnGalt23 on November 14, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Testing:

Just seeing if I can pass the filter with the word revolution.

You Paulbots scare me almost as much as leftists.

Get your smoke on. I know you’ll miss him.

wolly4321 on November 14, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Transcript of the speech for those interested.

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/national-blog/transcript-of-farewell-address/

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:15 PM

The comments on this page show why the GOP has lost support in the last few years. The right cannibalizes their own allies while the Democrats embraces their factions. While I do think the democrats are wrong on most issues, they are masters at branding themselves.

cjv209 on November 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Oh please…Ron Paul ha snever supported the GOP. He has never felt obligated to a party affiliation. The only thing he cares about is his perpetual campaigning. I won’t miss him any more than I will miss Kucinich.

Deanna on November 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM

You Paulbots scare me almost as much as leftists.

wolly4321 on November 14, 2012 at 9:15 PM

don’t get your panties twisted, they’re just like you but they smoke weed

Slade73 on November 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Paul said he wants to find a compromise on immigration reform that includes “an eventual path” to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, joining a chorus of Republicans looking to broaden the party’s appeal beyond white voters.

PappyD61 on November 14, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Let’s secure the border first, then decide whether or not we are doing ourselves any favors by stating out loud that people who have lived here most of their lives should be deported “back” to a country they do not know.

Paul also said he wants to work with Democrats to push for a softening of mandatory minimum sentencing on certain illegal drug offenses.

PappyD61 on November 14, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Most non-violent drug users belong in rehab, not prison, especially first offenders.

Henry Parsons on November 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Say what you will, but I’d exchange Ron Paul for what we have in WH now and the next four years, in a heartbeat.

Give me a constitutionalist any day over a statist, over a tyrant, or over a tyrant wannabe.

While he certainly isn’t the most articulate of messengers, and seemingly Quixotic in a way, his message as it pertains to the Constitution and Federalism cannot be denied.

Farewell, RP, but the cause lives on.

TXUS on November 14, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Paul has been a terrible advocate for liberty,because his eloquent defense of it was always overshadowed by his lunacy,limiting the audience receptive to his ideas.And his son seems to have inherited the “loon” gene,advocating amnesty and the legalization of pot.That might go over well in Colorado and Washington,but I think the guy just lost his re-election bid in Kentucky!

redware on November 14, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Social conservatism is an absolute requirement for fiscal conservatism.
sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Hardly.

Paul’s view’s on foreign policy are dangerously naive but then that seems to be a tough area for everyone. Our current foreign policy seems to involve arming terrorists, bowing to foreign dictators, and trashing allies.

CorporatePiggy on November 14, 2012 at 9:20 PM

I am am not impressed. Ron Paul is in love with pork and the spotlight, nothing else.

Deanna on November 14, 2012 at 9:10 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

He is neither a bigot nor a hypocrite.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Yeah, those newsletters were never written under his name and he hasn’t taken any and every opportunity to denounce Israel, no bigotry there.

An entire Congressional career of Pork, Pork and Pork while voting against the overall bill. Denouncing earmarks while larding bills up with them, yep…no hypocrisy there.

Go smoke your bong…

Rogue on November 14, 2012 at 9:21 PM

<blockquFor an orangutan I guess that would be considered to an intelligent response. Good for you!!!

antifederalist on November 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM
…right!…so pull your finger!

KOOLAID2 on November 14, 2012 at 9:21 PM

We can now build fences without worrying that a President Paul would order them torn down.

Bishop on November 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Well, now that he’s retiring, maybe he can resume writing his racist newsletters.

JPeterman on November 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Oh please…Ron Paul ha snever supported the GOP. He has never felt obligated to a party affiliation. The only thing he cares about is his perpetual campaigning. I won’t miss him any more than I will miss Kucinich.

Deanna on November 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM

That’s because he has principles and puts them first, whereas the majority puts party before principle. You seem to want an automaton rather than an independent thinker.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM

If they smoke weed they’re not just like me. They are stuck on teenage. Utopianism with a different bent.

wolly4321 on November 14, 2012 at 9:24 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

Great explanation, I might even support it and if Herr Doktor explained his vote for earmarks thusly, I’d have one less problem with him, but he doesn’t. He goes out banging his little racist fist and shouting from his soapbox denouncing government spending and vowing never to vote for it (and to his credit he doesn’t) all the while ensuring his constituents (and a couple of family members) get their oversized share of government largesse. Hypocrite

Rogue on November 14, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Denouncing earmarks while larding bills up with them, yep…no hypocrisy there.

Rogue on November 14, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Paul never denounced earmarks; he said we needed more of them. He was right. You are a easily swayed by demagogues.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:25 PM

but, but…racist newsletters and stuff

you sound like f-ing liberals

Slade73 on November 14, 2012 at 9:25 PM

On one hand, you have Ron Paul’s somewhat naive foreign policy objectives and on the other side, we have been held captive by this Neoconservative globalist faction that wants to inject military strength into every dark corner of the world. We need to find a happy medium and move towards Ron Paul’s direction.

Pitchforker on November 14, 2012 at 9:25 PM

That might go over well in Colorado and Washington,but I think the guy just lost his re-election bid in Kentucky!

redware on November 14, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Yeah… ’cause Kentucky never has any respect for bootlegging…

/rolleyes

JohnGalt23 on November 14, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Great explanation, I might even support it and if Herr Doktor explained his vote for earmarks thusly, I’d have one less problem with him, but he doesn’t.

Rogue on November 14, 2012 at 9:24 PM

He does, or did, all of the time.

Paul on Cavuto

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Paul has been a terrible advocate for liberty,because his eloquent defense of it was always overshadowed by his lunacy,limiting the audience receptive to his ideas.And his son seems to have inherited the “loon” gene,advocating amnesty and the legalization of pot.That might go over well in Colorado and Washington,but I think the guy just lost his re-election bid in Kentucky!

redware on November 14, 2012 at 9:19 PM

It’s funny that Hot Airheads call Ron Paul a lunatic primarily because of his foreign policy stance. You guys are real idiots. It turns out that he was right and you all were wrong on Iraq War and you have the nerve to call him a lunatic. Where were those weapons of mass destruction? How many people died due to the Iraq War? How many soldiers will live the remainder of their lives disabled due to the Iraq War? I can’t believe in the face of all of your failures you have the nerve to call the guy who got it right a lunatic.

antifederalist on November 14, 2012 at 9:26 PM

If they smoke weed they’re not just like me. They are stuck on teenage. Utopianism with a different bent.

wolly4321 on November 14, 2012 at 9:24 PM

you abstain then? did you at least have a sip of beer like Mitt?

Slade73 on November 14, 2012 at 9:26 PM

That’s because he has principles and puts them first, whereas the majority puts party before principle. You seem to want an automaton rather than an independent thinker.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Oh BS, all Paul sees is $$$, either via earmarks or via donations from his cultists and subscribers to his racist newsletters.

Rogue on November 14, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Paul never denounced earmarks; he said we needed more of them. He was right. You are a easily swayed by demagogues.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:25 PM

In fact, argues that every penny of the federal budget should be earmarked by Congress.

A sentiment I agree with, by the bye…

JohnGalt23 on November 14, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Social conservatism is an absolute requirement for fiscal conservatism. disastrous election results.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Henry Parsons on November 14, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Many of you know I drive a school bus in a pretty tough town. The kid on the left rode my bus:

http://media.kmov.com/images/470*261/granite_city_Juveniles_mugshots_111312.jpg

Full story here: http://www.kmov.com/news/local/3-teens-charged-in-54-year-old-mans-murder-in-Granite-City-179169131.html

davidk on November 14, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Throw the pork in, and vote no, knowing it’s attached to something that will pass.

You paulbots never explained that part.

wolly4321 on November 14, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Borders?

The Pappy Plan announced seems like a couple of years ago.

1. Seal the borders.
Saves entitlements by the score (Welfare, AFDC, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment, etc.) It also saves the Republic from millions more Teaters latching onto the Federal sow.


2. Cut Federal spending 10% every year.

Real cuts. If the budget is $3.4 Trillion then the budget gets cut by $340 billion, then $310 billion, then $270 billion and so on. Make the cuts automatic “budget cliff” where a 90% vote is required to change the cuts.

Those two plans can be argued to be “fair” and “shared sacrifice” etc. Provided we can find someone that has the cajones to do it, and the skills to communicate it successfully.

Who knows Ron Paul might even support that plan.

PappyD61 on November 14, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Bark took 3 passes and a final wait of 16 hours before agreeing to off Bin Laden; Ron would have stood firm. Firm like an iron fence! Well ok maybe not a fence…firm as an iron…post.

Bishop on November 14, 2012 at 9:29 PM

He does, or did, all of the time.

Paul on Cavuto

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Read my post again Paulbot, “Explain his vote for earmarks“. Paul doesn’t vote for earmarks, his philosophy is, “Everything should be earmarked (I can support that) I use earmarks on everything (good for him) but I won’t vote for them (hypocrite)”

Rogue on November 14, 2012 at 9:30 PM

We can now build fences without worrying that a President Paul would order them torn down.

Bishop on November 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I know the fence thing gets a lot of mileage with you and some others, but let me try to put it to you this way. Let’s assume that the United States isn’t a police state and that it doesn’t infringe upon our liberties daily. Given that the government is inherently force and coercion, and given that the nature of government is to gravitate towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism, do you think a fence would be a benefit to a totalitarian regime? Even if you think we aren’t there or that we wouldn’t be there yet, why go down that path at all?

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:31 PM

As far as drug laws. Fine, if you want them to go to rehab the first time and they weren’t pushing/selling/distributing drugs. I can support that.

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).

If they want druggies driving around on the roads stoned in Colorado then the voters there can deal with the consequences. Can someone check with MADD to see how they feel about people being able to drive stoned?

But wait until the first wave of parents has to deal with a van load of kids killed by some stoner on a road in Boulder after an all night bong session.

Being stoned has consequences.

PappyD61 on November 14, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Read my post again Paulbot, “Explain his vote for earmarks“. Paul doesn’t vote for earmarks, his philosophy is, “Everything should be earmarked (I can support that) I use earmarks on everything (good for him) but I won’t vote for them (hypocrite)”

Rogue on November 14, 2012 at 9:30 PM

You’re quoting something you never said, so how could I read it again? All I see from you are the same tired smears that don’t hold water.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:34 PM

What did Republicans learn from the election?

They learned the Big Tent should be smaller. Get rid of the libertarians and grant 12000000 Hispanic Dems amnesty.

Slade73 on November 14, 2012 at 9:34 PM

The Libertarian Era could be upon us. I don’t see how the GOP as currently constructed can win national elections without the youth and minority vote. Libertarianism at least has some appeal in these groups and if that means less social conservatism in favor of a drastic reduction in the size and scope of the federal government. I might welcome this in the interim in order to reverse the cataclysmic course we are on now.

milemarker2020 on November 14, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Read my post again Paulbot, “Explain his vote for earmarks“. Paul doesn’t vote for earmarks, his philosophy is, “Everything should be earmarked (I can support that) I use earmarks on everything (good for him) but I won’t vote for them (hypocrite)”

Rogue on November 14, 2012 at 9:30 PM

He’s a hypocrite?… because he won’t vote for federal spending?

Did you recently join the Democratic Party?

Let us have 218 such hypocrites, and the world would be a better place…

JohnGalt23 on November 14, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Being stoned has consequences.

PappyD61 on November 14, 2012 at 9:33 PM

yeah

I’d say those consequences are considerably less than the much more dangerous and legal drug – alcohol

Slade73 on November 14, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Throw the pork in, and vote no, knowing it’s attached to something that will pass.

You paulbots never explained that part.

wolly4321 on November 14, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Easy. You have a Republican Party that too easily and too readily says yes.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Can someone check with MADD to see how they feel about people being able to drive stoned?

PappyD61 on November 14, 2012 at 9:33 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

Slade73- dude, I tried everything. Then I kinda grew up. You wanna smoke weed? I think you should be able to. You grow it for yourself, fine.

But don’t you think we may have bigger worries than getting high?

End the Federal Reserve and smoke a doobie. That’s coherent.

wolly4321 on November 14, 2012 at 9:37 PM

That’s because he has principles and puts them first, whereas the majority puts party before principle. You seem to want an automaton rather than an independent thinker.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM

An independent thinker who never accomplishes anything is nothing. I dislike people who waste our time. As for principles, Ron Paul is a politician, nothing more, no matter what you believe. I won’t miss him or many politicians. There are very, very few who can point to accomplishments to be proud of, and Ron Paul isn’t one of them.

Deanna on November 14, 2012 at 9:37 PM

It’s funny that Hot Airheads call Ron Paul a lunatic primarily because of his foreign policy stance. You guys are real idiots. It turns out that he was right and you all were wrong on Iraq War and you have the nerve to call him a lunatic. Where were those weapons of mass destruction? How many people died due to the Iraq War? How many soldiers will live the remainder of their lives disabled due to the Iraq War? I can’t believe in the face of all of your failures you have the nerve to call the guy who got it right a lunatic.

antifederalist on November 14, 2012 at 9:26 PM

But didn’t he blame America for 9/11?

Gelsomina on November 14, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Given that the government is inherently force and coercion, and given that the nature of government is to gravitate towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism, do you think a fence would be a benefit to a totalitarian regime? Even if you think we aren’t there or that we wouldn’t be there yet, why go down that path at all?

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:31 PM

What would be the best way to implement all that totalitarianism, by using the military perhaps? Why go down that path at all, time to abolish the military.

Bishop on November 14, 2012 at 9:38 PM

What did Republicans learn from the election?

They learned the Big Tent should be smaller. Get rid of the libertarians and grant 12000000 Hispanic Dems amnesty.

Slade73 on November 14, 2012 at 9:34 PM

…Libertarians are fine!…but like Repubicans and Demorats…THEY HAVE KOOKS TOO!…but don’t recognize them!

KOOLAID2 on November 14, 2012 at 9:39 PM

wolly4321- it’s not about getting high, it’s about small Government. And no, I don’t think we have bigger worries than our massive Government expansion.

Slade73 on November 14, 2012 at 9:39 PM

In this thread:

A bunch of people with no principles talking about how awful Ron Paul is.

Seriously. Hotair is INFESTED with people who call themselves conservatives, but who really are statists. This site is overrun with people who SAY they support the tenth amendment, but who MEAN that they only support it when its against a certain liberal policy they dislike. The republican party is controlled by people who claim to want smaller government, but only mean smaller when it comes to certain issues.

The GOP has turned into a joke, and the fools on this site that openly support it are idiots. The GOP is functionally no different than liberals. The military is their welfare issue, and for all other issues they are essentially identical.

No one TRULY means they support smaller government anymore. No one actually supports the tenth amendment. Its all a farce. 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

An independent thinker who never accomplishes anything is nothing. I dislike people who waste our time. As for principles, Ron Paul is a politician, nothing more, no matter what you believe. I won’t miss him or many politicians. There are very, very few who can point to accomplishments to be proud of, and Ron Paul isn’t one of them.

Deanna on November 14, 2012 at 9:37 PM

So your measure of success isn’t someone who says “no” to government and who defends liberty and the Constituiton, but someone who says “yes” to government and has a stack of legislation passed? Your measure of success is more government, not less?

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:40 PM

The vague and incoherent putdowns (and charges of racism) of Paul make Hotair look like MSNBC. This is embarrassing.

ModerateMan on November 14, 2012 at 9:42 PM

If he would not of had a bug up his A$$ and had his followers vote for romney, we would be on the way to a smaller Government. Beware of his son.

WordHungry on November 14, 2012 at 9:42 PM

The comments on this page show why the GOP has lost support in the last few years. The right cannibalizes their own allies while the Democrats embraces their factions. While I do think the democrats are wrong on most issues, they are masters at branding themselves.

cjv209 on November 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM

No, they’re eliminating the pro-life, pro-gun and moderate liberals from their ranks, replacing them with far left progressive types. And in the meantime, they’re insisting that Mitt was too conservative to win the election.

And some of us freaking buy that?

Oh well, at least the right and left agree on foreign policy. It’s just that the liberals want a big US government that runs the world, while the GOP seems to believe they can create a small US government that runs the world.

angelat0763 on November 14, 2012 at 9:43 PM

But didn’t he blame America for 9/11?

Gelsomina on November 14, 2012 at 9:38 PM

No, he blamed the terrorists and pointed to our interventionist foreign policy as their motivation. He didn’t have to look far to find their reasons, given that bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa was published by American media such as PBS.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Unfortunately, the social cons are the ones controlling the message.

Notorious GOP on November 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM

If only. If social conservatives are the ones controlling the message, we would have never nominated Mitt Romney.

But social conservatives need to be dominating the message. Why? Because there is no such thing as economic conservativism without social conservatism. Period. Economic conservatism and social libertarianism or social liberalism fails every time.

Shump on November 14, 2012 at 9:44 PM

…Libertarians are fine!…but like Repubicans and Demorats…THEY HAVE KOOKS TOO!…but don’t recognize them!

KOOLAID2 on November 14, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Believe me, I recognize one.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:44 PM

But didn’t he blame America for 9/11?

Gelsomina on November 14, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Did he blame the Federal Government’s policy in the Middle East for causing blow back. Yep. By the way, I don’t consider the Federal government “America.”

antifederalist on November 14, 2012 at 9:45 PM

HotGas is also infested with conservatives who are creeped out by people like Ron Paul. Does he have some worthy ideas, sure, doesn’t mean the rest of him is acceptable to me.

Bishop on November 14, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Did Ron actually write that speech or just sign his name at the bottom?

Bishop on November 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Well played, sir.

kim roy on November 14, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4