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

I can’t help but notice the Alinsky styled tactics being utilized by some so-called Conservative’s here. Labeling every Ron Paul supporter a “Racist” or a “Pot Head”. I thought you guys despised the Left for this tactic, yet you adopt it an attempt to discredit somebody. This is something I would expect out of the left. I guess it’s just another example of the similarities between the Left and Right.

dom89031 on November 14, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Stop trying to put words in my mouth, you have seen me say I despise this country. I came with the shirt on my back, a change of clothes, my books and my tools. I take nothing from this Government.

Ron Paul’s stance on Israel is offensive. Period the end.

JPeterman on November 14, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Again with using words and phrases that don’t mean what you think they mean. This is becoming quite the habit for you. I didn’t put any words in your mouth; I asked you questions. Why do you despise Paul and the message of liberty so much?

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 11:15 PM

I can’t help but notice the Alinsky styled tactics being utilized by some so-called Conservative’s here. Labeling every Ron Paul supporter a “Racist” or a “Pot Head”. I thought you guys despised the Left for this tactic, yet you adopt it an attempt to discredit somebody. This is something I would expect out of the left. I guess it’s just another example of the similarities between the Left and Right.

dom89031 on November 14, 2012 at 11:09 PM

What you’re seeing is people showing their true colors now that they have absolutely no reason to play nice, since basically their final political hope was destroyed. That and a predictable amount of last-minute ugliness since Ron Paul was almost the only person in Congress who actually stood against the permawar agenda.
(I ask you: how much have Democrats cared about ending the Bush Wars since Bush left? Or the Democrat media? Or even the average Democrat voter???)

The ‘liberal stereotype’ of the right-wing may be badly exaggerated but is (sadly) not just something they made up out of whole cloth. Nor is certain person’s suspiciously-specific habit of projecting racism.

IMO when things finally hit the fan, if ‘people’ like riddickulous get their buddies and go on slave raids in what used to be Democrat welfare areas, I won’t be surprised. And I won’t interfere for their laze a$$ses either.

MelonCollie on November 14, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Ron Paul’s stance on Israel is offensive. Period the end.

JPeterman on November 14, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Ron Paul’s stance on Israel is that she is a sovereign nation, and that she shouldn’t be looking to the U.S. for permission to defend herself if need be. His position is that we shouldn’t be giving foreign aid to any country, and that we give more foreign aid to Israel’s enemies than we do Israel – our supposed ally. He wants us to quit treating her like a puppet. What is offensive about that?

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 11:18 PM

You’re kidding. right? Herr Doktor is for open borders. Wide open borders.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 11:08 PM

He is for open borders in regards to free trade, which includes labor; it is a free market position. He is not in favor of amnesty, nor does he think the border shouldn’t be defended. You really are ignorant; your hatred blinds you.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Why so much hate for this man? So many of you were willing stand behind Mitt, the liberal, abortionist, gun-grabbing, Massachusetts governor. But you literally despise someone who actually follows the Constitution in Congress. Why? Not saying you have to agree with him, but why the hate?

EBounding on November 14, 2012 at 11:23 PM

There are a fair few issues over which I would heartily disagree with longtime Rep. Ron Paul…
Again, I’m not on board with everything he has to say…

Funny. I hear this a lot, yet such sentiments largely go undefined. Folks will say what they like about him, yet rarely explain what it is about which they disagree with him. When folks do define their differences, it usually has to do with labeling him an “isolationist”. That’s far from the truth: how can we label a free-trade/free-market advocate as “isolationist”? He merely argues that we shouldn’t intervene militarily in the affairs of others and that we should seek to defend our sovereignty and ability to conduct trade (e.g. protect our shipping lanes). What’s so foreign about this concept? Would we lose influence in the world? Well, that presupposes that we actually have the ability to control anything outside our borders in the first place. (It’s not like intervening in the affairs of others has really earned us all that many friends in places such as Nicaragua, Argentina (by supporting a NATO ally instead of a Rio Pact ally), Russia, Iran, Vietnam, Iraq, Kurdistan, Egypt, Libya and much of the rest of Africa, China, Afghanistan, Pakistan…) Besides, even if we once had the ability to control the actions of other autonomous nations, with our weakening fiscal situation combined with our poor diplomatic standing, how can we expect to maintain that influence? We’re losing influence and the ability to affect the world militarily, diplomatically, and economically. We should accept this and scale back on our own terms rather than having it forced upon us. But hey, that’s just crazy talk, right?

Send_Me on November 14, 2012 at 11:27 PM

…HEY!…You guys!…Over at the Quotes of the Day
…WE GOT SH!T…!!!

KOOLAID2 on November 14, 2012 at 11:46 PM

I wish him well. He would have made a great president. Unfortunately, with the majority of Republicans these days, the concept of limited government (both within the US and beyond our borders) is more of a convenient phrase as opposed to something they actually advocate or believe in. Instead, they use Leftist tactics in attacking true limited government adherents.

RobbBond on November 14, 2012 at 11:52 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

Which is why he runs as a Republican – rather than on a third-party ticket which espouses his ‘principles’. Is that about it?

Solaratov on November 14, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Ron Paul’s farewell address is for the history books. I encourage everybody to watch it, with a family and friends preferably, because it’s the plain truth of things.

FloatingRock on November 14, 2012 at 11:58 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

Right. As long as it is the paulbots’ message and there is no deviation from established cant.
You people have a nasty little habit of labeling anyone who disagrees with you – or ronpaul – as a ‘democrat’ or a ‘communist’.
Why would I seek to ally myself with any bunch of snot-nosed punks who call me names like that? Especially a bunch of kids who have never fought communists (except, perhaps, verbally). I spent a lot of years fighting communists – and I’ll be damned if I’ll put up with being called one by a bunch of punks because I don’t fall on the ground and worship their little tin god; and accept his every belch as the perfect word.
And I’ll never ally with a bunch who either stayed home in ’08 or ’12 “because you need to be taught a lesson”. You people who stayed home or tossed your vote on a third party – knowing what was a stake – are as much a bunch of moochers as the leftists. Worse – you’re a bunch of whiny, supercilious, selfish little brats. I have no use for you.

Solaratov on November 15, 2012 at 12:07 AM

And if you don’t watch it, do yourself a favor and read it

Paul’s farewell address

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 12:08 AM

You’re kidding. right? Herr Doktor is for open borders. Wide open borders.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 11:08 PM

No, he’s not. President Ron Paul will secure the border with the military in 2017 and that’s not an open border. He opposes unreasonable searches and seizures so does not want the police demanding to see peoples papers like in fascist states and therefor would not take strong measures to track them down and deport them as a small minority of border hawks would like, but on the other hand illegals would not qualify for any government handouts or amnesty, either, thus turning off the magnets that draw the least desirable illegals here.

To the best of my understanding Ron Paul does not support amnesty or open borders.

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 12:15 AM

You people have a nasty little habit of labeling anyone who disagrees with you – or ronpaul – as a ‘democrat’ or a ‘communist’.

And I’ll never ally with a bunch who either stayed home in ’08 or ’12 “because you need to be taught a lesson”. You people who stayed home or tossed your vote on a third party – knowing what was a stake – are as much a bunch of moochers as the leftists. Worse – you’re a bunch of whiny, supercilious, selfish little brats. I have no use for you.

Solaratov on November 15, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Oh the irony regarding name calling. Anyway, I voted Romney because I thought he had a shot in my leaning dem county. He won by 3%. Yay or something. Not voting can mean you withdraw your support of a corrupt system.

I’m done supporting the GOP at all given this idiotic talk lately. I left the party almost 10 years ago but most R’s are the better of the two choices we end up getting (I vote for no dems after obamacare). If I bother to vote anymore, it’ll be third party. Congress isn’t listening to you Solaratov, either party. Look at the GOP convention. They told all of the grassroots, tea party folks and the “paulbots” to take a hike, the RNC Beltway boys are in control. Your money is most welcome, but keep your libertarian or social conservative ideas to yourself. Vote Milktoast candidate X!

oryguncon on November 15, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Ron Paul’s stance on Israel is offensive. Period the end.

JPeterman on November 14, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Ron Paul’s stance on Israel is that she is a sovereign nation, and that she shouldn’t be looking to the U.S. for permission to defend herself if need be. His position is that we shouldn’t be giving foreign aid to any country, and that we give more foreign aid to Israel’s enemies than we do Israel – our supposed ally. He wants us to quit treating her like a puppet. What is offensive about that?

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 11:18 PM

That sounds more than just reasonable, it sounds wise.

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Ron Paul’s farewell salute to freedom

EJ: I can support your respect for Rep Paul, but really, this as a headline?

This isn’t Washington’s farewell speech, this is just a House Rep signing off…and unless he’s announcing something truly Earth shaking, he really isn’t saying anything new or improved since the last time he stood with a microphone in his face.

Rep Paul, I give you respect for your service, but other than that you weren’t the right face for Libertarianism, and in my humble opinion, are just a little too casual with Foreign Policy for my tastes.

But good luck, and well, try to stop with the newsletters, eh?

…and take your flippin Paulbot’s and put them back in the garage, PLEASE.

BlaxPac on November 15, 2012 at 12:57 AM

You people have a nasty little habit of labeling anyone who disagrees with you – or ronpaul – as a ‘democrat’ or a ‘communist’.

Solaratov on November 15, 2012 at 12:07 AM

And “you people” are a bunch of rich, racist, white, intolerant haters who want to push grandma’s wheelchair over the cliff!

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Paul voted against every amnesty bill.
Paul is against affirmative action.
Paul is against welfare for illegal immigrants.
Paul is even against birthright citizenship! Tell me right-wingers, how many Republicans are openly against birthright citizenship? Go ahead, call him a Democrat now.
Paul is against foreign-aid…to ALL nations.
Paul is against bailouts.
Paul is against ObamaCare, and every other socialization of the medical system which Republicans never challenged.

Neocons and Hotairites are willing to tolerate such despicable mouth breathers as John McCain and Bill Kristol as Republicans but Dr. Paul just won’t do.

flawedskull on November 15, 2012 at 1:25 AM

I don’t mind your stance, I really don’t, nor Antifederalist’s for that matter, but don’t repeat a falsehood based off the meme that is presented by a media that has no vested interest in telling the truth.

MarshFox on November 14, 2012 at 10:19 PM

George Bush admits there were no WMD’s in Iraq.

Is GWB part of the media that has no vested interest in the truth?

JohnGalt23 on November 15, 2012 at 2:06 AM

Having members of the family exterminated by Nazis in Babiy Yar any openly anti-semitic idiot deserves the title of Herr Doktor. RP as a prime example, fater decades of spouting racist, anti-semitic hatred in his newsletters and elsewhere.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 10:44 PM

You mean the newsletters that were written by Murray Rothbard? Not quite the uber-Jew that is Henry Kissinger, but Jewish on steroids to say the least.

Those newsletters?

JohnGalt23 on November 15, 2012 at 2:44 AM

Re: Ron Paul zealots (not to be confused with rational people who thought RP made some good points) whining about conservatives attacking him and them:

Ron Paul Hates Republicans and Everything They Stand For
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/21/ron_paul_hates_republicans_and_everything_they_stand_for/
“Why, you might ask, would Ron Paul, champion of economic freedom and limited government, endorse two avowed socialists for President? Well, you see, they signed a document …”

Video: Rudy blasts Ron Paul’s apology for 9/11.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/15/video-rudy-blasts-ron-pauls-apology-for-911/

RON PAUL: RETALLIATING AGAINST ROCKET FIRE = “PREEMPTIVE WAR”. WON’T CONDEMN HAMAS.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/05/video-ron-paul-laments-israels-preemptive-war/

RON PAUL: GAZA IS LIKE A “CONCENTRATION CAMP”, ISRAEL DOESN’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM ROCKET FIRE (ROCKETS IN THE THOUSANDS)

RON PAUL AND OTHERS SPEW BULLCRAP ABOUT THE “MOTIVES” OF BIN LADEN AND AL QAEDA. PAUL ASKS IF YOU’VE EVER READ WHAT THEY’VE SAID. WELL, PAUL, I HAVE. HAVE YOU? BIN LADEN’S OWN WORDS:

Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue — one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice — and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; [2] or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; [3] or the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)

http://www.meforum.org/3044/ron-paul-foreign-policy

Video: Ron Paul denounces Israel’s flotilla raid, of course
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/03/video-ron-paul-denounces-israels-flotilla-raid-of-course/

Video: A brief word to third-party voters this cycle
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/05/video-a-brief-word-to-third-party-voters-this-cycle/

Ron Paul’s got a lot of good ideas.

And a lot of HORRIBLE ones.

You can be for some sort of non-interventionist policy if you want, but Paul has CLEARLY gone far beyond that and into plainly anti-Israel territory, lying to himself and to others about Israel to justify his irrational hatred, just like oh-so-many on the Left.

No Ron Paul fan has even the slightest SHRED of the right to label others as RINOs or “not-really conservative”.

Case closed.

CanofSand on November 15, 2012 at 3:09 AM

The last true statesman.

RightXBrigade on November 15, 2012 at 4:59 AM

Send_Me on November 14, 2012 at 11:27 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

EJ: I can support your respect for Rep Paul, but really, this as a headline?

This isn’t Washington’s farewell speech, this is just a House Rep signing off…and unless he’s announcing something truly Earth shaking, he really isn’t saying anything new or improved since the last time he stood with a microphone in his face.

Rep Paul, I give you respect for your service, but other than that you weren’t the right face for Libertarianism, and in my humble opinion, are just a little too casual with Foreign Policy for my tastes.

But good luck, and well, try to stop with the newsletters, eh?

…and take your flippin Paulbot’s and put them back in the garage, PLEASE.

BlaxPac on November 15, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Funny that you mention both Washington’s farewell speech and Paul’s foreign policy, since Paul subscribes to Washington’s foreign policy, which GW talked about in his farewell address.

You should do yourself a favor and take the time to read his speech. It’s fantastic.

Paul’s Farewell Address

Everyone claims support for freedom. But too often it’s for one’s own freedom and not for others. Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.

Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited. These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 7:32 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. 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

Actually, the facts of the 20th century strongly support his stance.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 7:34 AM

Haven’t watched the video yet. Has he FINALLY called truthers the nutballs that they are? Has he FINALLY apologized for accusing us of killing 1,000,000 Iraqis? If he would have done that in the past I woudl have been his biggest supporter.

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 15, 2012 at 7:36 AM

Here’s a book for you, Odysseus:

Wilson’s War: How Woodrow Wilson’s Great Blunder Led to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and World War II

“Dewey had earlier supported American entry into World War I; and, as Woods makes clear, support for intervention at home goes hand-in-hand with an aggressive foreign policy. Woodrow Wilson, the economic interventionist, influenced by partiality toward England and by his desire to reshape the world, abandoned America’s traditional policy of noninvolvement in European power politics. Woods stresses Wilson’s blatantly unfair prewar diplomacy. Wilson insisted that Americans had the right to travel on armed belligerent ships, holding the Germans to “strict accountability” for American lives lost in submarine attacks. At the same time, he accepted the British hunger blockade of Germany, though this cost many times more lives than the German policy.

Franklin Roosevelt proved an apt pupil of Wilson in the events leading to America’s entry into World War II. Roosevelt’s “destroyers for bases” agreement with the British in September 1940 might have provoked a German declaration of war: nevertheless, Roosevelt saw no need to secure the approval of Congress.”

Link

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 7:43 AM

BTW, I’m sick of the word “federalist” being used as the opposite of what it originally meant. How does someone become a “federalist” when they want the FEDERAL government to have LESS power.

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 15, 2012 at 7:44 AM

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

Last time I checked, it was ANTI-conservative to accuse your country for killing 1,000,000 Iraqis and also ANTI-conservative to blame the U.S. for all the world’s problems.

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 15, 2012 at 7:47 AM

I should have voted for Paul. I’m so done with the GOP regulars.

Mr. Arrogant on November 15, 2012 at 7:57 AM

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

Romney is not a liberal. He is not a conservative either, but he is not a liberal. Using commonly accepted political terminology, Romney would be best described as a “moderate,” though I hate that term because it implies that anyone holding any different philosophy is an extremist. But Romney, despite what some here would have one believe, is quite different than true liberals like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al.

Paul, however, is no conservative. He is a libertarian. (With a little “l” because he does not formally belong to the Libertarian Party.) And libertarians are not conservatives. And libertarians are the closest thing to anarchists that we have in our modern political system. And that is as dangerous to our society as big government liberalism is.

Frequently, leftist Democrats like to accuse conservative Republicans of believing that there is no role at all in our society for government. But that is not what conservatives believe. It is essentially what libertarians believe, though, and that is why conservatism does not equal libertarianism.

Shump on November 15, 2012 at 9:12 AM

My issue with Paul is that he minimizes the threat of Islamic terrorism. He also has a habit of rationalizing jihadist terrorism by blaming the United States and Israel.

The essence of Ron Paul on terrorism: “Some Muslims bombed us? Well, can you blame them? Wouldn’t you have reacted the same way? We were poking our nose where it didn’t belong; if we hadn’t done that then maybe we wouldn’t have become a terrorist target. We just need to leave the jihadists alone, and they won’t bother us anymore. It’s really our own fault, you know.”

Basically, Ron Paul and Jeremiah Wright are bosom buddies when it comes to blaming the United States for Islamic terrorist attacks.

Ron Paul has many admirable traits, but his dangerous and disgusting views of the threat of terrorism always made him unfit for the presidency.

bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 9:12 AM

As an older adult approaching 60, I agree with most of what Mr. Paul says. I thought it was a great speech, one of his best.

I did not support Ron Paul, but I would have gladly voted for him had he been the nominee. He, unfortunately endorses nobody, only himself. Narcissist comes to mine. There is a myriad of difference between McCain and Obama for example, and Romney and Obama as of recent.

He certainly has been in congress a very long time, too bad he didn’t really come into the national stage until very late in life. He was reckless in his younger years, a my way or the highway approach, he spoke and carried himself as if he were the smartest person in Washington, he didn’t really make time for the ‘others’.

His years in Congress could have garnered much change to a more responsible, fiscal government. He did not always speak as well as he does today.

Personally, I thank him for his service, wish he could have achieved more cooperation and smart talking back in the day. A smarter, softer approach could have gotten through to the American people years ago. In all my years he has always considered himself to be the smartest person on the stage.

shar61 on November 15, 2012 at 9:13 AM

I did not support Ron Paul, but I would have gladly voted for him had he been the nominee. He, unfortunately endorses nobody, only himself. Narcissist comes to mine.

shar61 on November 15, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Narcissist? Funny. Principled comes to my mind.

In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues.

Yeah, those are the words of a narcissist.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Personally, I thank him for his service, wish he could have achieved more cooperation and smart talking back in the day.

shar61 on November 15, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Nice post. You said what I feel too.

petefrt on November 15, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Ron Paul, the man TRUE

voiceofreason on November 15, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Ron Paul, the man TRUE conservatives should have run against Obama.

voiceofreason on November 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Ron Paul will not be remembered for his farewell address, but he will be remembered for refusing to support the 2012 GOP nominee.

Pork-Chop on November 15, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Ron Paul will not be remembered for his farewell address, but he will be remembered for refusing to support the 2012 GOP nominee by sore-loser wingnuts.

Pork-Chop on November 15, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Fixed.

The rest of us won’t blame him for the Republicans’ inability to come up with anyone better than a weathervane RINO. Now that is a silly conspiracy theory.

MelonCollie on November 15, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Ron Paul will not be remembered for his farewell address, but he will be remembered for refusing to support the 2012 GOP nominee.

Pork-Chop on November 15, 2012 at 9:49 AM

SO I should’ve support Mitt because ‘he wasn’t Obama?’

Notorious GOP on November 15, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Ron Paul, the man TRUE conservatives should have run against Obama.

voiceofreason on November 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Even if we’d lost to Obama – let’s face it, the demographic tipping point is nearly or already passed – I would have been proud that our last stand was with someone who for all his faults actually held conservative beliefs and stood by them no matter what.

Instead we got front-row seats to “Liberal and Liberaler”. What a painful last act to run.

MelonCollie on November 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM

nice to see the gloves come off, and see how some of you view libertarians when you’re not trying to get our vote. I like to believe the GOP talking points about limited govt and personal freedom, but I’ve learned otherwise. at this point in time, the GOP is nothing more than democrat lite.

burserker on November 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Of course liberty is not an easy sell to the masses, because it requires a combination of self-restraint and sociability that Ron Paul and his followers themselves have practiced only intermittently. In other words it a kind of aristocratic lifestyle which naturally appealed to the Framers of the Constitution but is a much harder proposition for the vast majority which must encounter daily frustration in their lives.

A choice of words can be highly revealing, no?

Seth Halpern on November 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM

SO I should’ve support Mitt because ‘he wasn’t Obama?’

Notorious GOP on November 15, 2012 at 9:56 AM

No. BUT, Ron Paul WAS an elected REPUBLICAN – he had an obligation to support the nominee.

Pork-Chop on November 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM

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?

Shame his foreign policy positions were so naive, he could have gone so much further.

Conservatism is always brought down by some nutcase position that is out of the mainstream. So liberals are able to wed conservatism to fringe elements and we lose a large section of average Americans.

Paul’s foreign policy positions do the same thing to conservatives as Pat Robertson and his ilk.

ButterflyDragon on November 15, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Frequently, leftist Democrats like to accuse conservative Republicans of believing that there is no role at all in our society for government. But that is not what conservatives believe. It is essentially what libertarians believe, though, and that is why conservatism does not equal libertarianism.

Shump on November 15, 2012 at 9:12 AM

You clearly have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

ButterflyDragon on November 15, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Pork-Chop on November 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Get over “Party Politics”. This is the problem…Your exact thinking is the problem!

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 10:08 AM

No. BUT, Ron Paul WAS an elected REPUBLICAN – he had an obligation to support the nominee.

Pork-Chop on November 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Just like I had an ‘obligation’ to vote for him? Screw that and screw you.

MelonCollie on November 15, 2012 at 10:08 AM

No. BUT, Ron Paul WAS an elected REPUBLICAN – he had an obligation to support the nominee.

Pork-Chop on November 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM

So… you’d say the same thing about Zell Miller and the Democratic Party?

JohnGalt23 on November 15, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Shame his foreign policy positions were so naive, he could have gone so much further.

ButterflyDragon on November 15, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Well, I’ll agree the idea the the US is going to democratize the ME, and end tyranny across the globe is a pretty naive concept…

Wait a minute. I sort of slipped there. That naive idea didn’t belong to Ron Paul. That particular piece of naivete belonged to
George W Bush and Richard Cheney, and whose arrival was heralded by thunderous applause coming from the Right.

Perhaps you should reconsider your claims of naivete

JohnGalt23 on November 15, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Just like I had an ‘obligation’ to vote for him? Screw that and screw you.

MelonCollie on November 15, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Don’t be a silly little twit. Ron Paul is/was an elected Republican – he ran for the GOP nomination and he didn’t get it. As an ELECTED member of the Republican Party and a failed candidate for the nomination, he had an obligation to publicly support the nominee. Nobody had an obligation to VOTE for Romney.

Pork-Chop on November 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM

The real question is: Was Ron Paul the worst the public speaker ever to be elected to public office?

legalimmigrant on November 15, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Get over “Party Politics”. This is the problem…Your exact thinking is the problem!

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Don’t be ridiculous. I didn’t ask Ron Paul to be a REPUBLICAN – I didn’t ask Ron Paul to run for the GOP nomination – he chose that path. Ron Paul could have belonged to any party or no party, but he chose to be a Republican. Ron Paul fully supports “PARTY POLITICS” or he wouldn’t gave run for the GOP nomination.

Pork-Chop on November 15, 2012 at 10:20 AM

(typo fix)

… he wouldn’t HAVE run …

Pork-Chop on November 15, 2012 at 10:25 AM

The real question is: Was Ron Paul the worst the public speaker ever to be elected to public office?

legalimmigrant on November 15, 2012 at 10:17 AM

You’re deliberately leaving Obama out of the running to smear him, and even besides the Zero, the answer is “no”.

MelonCollie on November 15, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Pork-Chop, I’m curious to know your opinion on a couple of questions…Who do you think is a better defender of the Constitution than Ron Paul? Who do you think has a better voting record than Ron Paul? Who do you think places the Constitution in a higher regard than Ron Paul?

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Don’t be ridiculous. I didn’t ask Ron Paul to be a REPUBLICAN – I didn’t ask Ron Paul to run for the GOP nomination – he chose that path. Ron Paul could have belonged to any party or no party, but he chose to be a Republican. Ron Paul fully supports “PARTY POLITICS” or he wouldn’t gave run for the GOP nomination.

Pork-Chop on November 15, 2012 at 10:20 AM

And he would have gotten ZERO coverage in the two party monopoly.

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Case closed.

CanofSand on November 15, 2012 at 3:09 AM

Well said.

Additionally, Paul panders to pacifists and isolationists, which also causes me to reject him.

(Some of Paul’s supporters like to pretend that as a veteran Paul wouldn’t pander to pacifists… or that only isolationism conforms to the Constitution.) But overall the majority of Paul supporters (not those who post here) understand and like the pacifism and isolationism.

shinty on November 15, 2012 at 10:37 AM

And he would have gotten ZERO coverage in the two party monopoly.

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Are you saying that it was okay for Paul to compromise?

I don’t see why Paul should be immune from criticism regarding what everyone else ought to be condemned for…

shinty on November 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM

shinty on November 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM

He did not compromise his principles, if he did then I’d agree he ought to be condemned.

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM

I could not possibly care less what Ron Paul has to say now, after this election, when he couldn’t be bothered to even be a speed-bump in the path of Barack Obama. If you can’t get off your backside and be an impediment to a guy who is the polar opposite of EVERYTHING you stand for, what good are you?

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM

He stands for the Constitution? Do you believe he should be forced to support somebody he believes does not stand for the Constitution?

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Ron Paul’s stance on Israel is that she is a sovereign nation, and that she shouldn’t be looking to the U.S. for permission to defend herself if need be. His position is that we shouldn’t be giving foreign aid to any country, and that we give more foreign aid to Israel’s enemies than we do Israel – our supposed ally. He wants us to quit treating her like a puppet. What is offensive about that?

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 11:18 PM

For me, Paul’s statement was offensive b/c he refused to realize that on this small planet, no nation can stand alone. It needs allies. It took how many nations acting in concert to win WWII?
One nation alone could NOT have won the war.

I also found his statement during one the debates in which he participated where he said he ‘wouldn’t have risked American lives just to save Jews’ (during WWII) offensive. What a small little man. As well as being a complete and utter fool.

Sorry, this just isn’t a man I want for President or any other office.

Additionally, since I’m from Texas I also found him to be offensive in that while campaigning against Federal intrusiveness, he was the biggest recipient of all the congress critters in Texas of federal monies for his district at his request!

Again……not someone I would want for President.

And, he admitted that HE watched an abortion in which the baby was still alive, tossed in a trash can, crying and gasping for air until it DIED!!
His complaint: Mew! Mew! (whine, whine)….. “There were numerous doctors around and “no one attempted to help” this baby and said that other babies born with this birthweight were down the hall happy in their mother’s arms!!!. Hello? You twit. YOU were present!! How hypocritical.

ALL IN ALL, I FIND PAUL TO A WALKING PIECE OF SELF-RIGHTEOUS OFFENSIVE!!

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:13 AM

For me, Paul’s statement was offensive b/c he refused to realize that on this small planet, no nation can stand alone. It needs allies.

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:13 AM

How wonderfully one-world collectivist of you.

The UN sends its thanks…

JohnGalt23 on November 15, 2012 at 11:24 AM

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM

He had ALREADY SEEN what Barack Obama was capable of. So, yes. Get in the way of that. Be an impediment to it in every way you possibly can. Obama is the antithesis of everything he claimed to stand for, and yet… nothing, nada, zilch, not one action to avoid the coming destruction.

So, yeah… I’m sooooooo over libertarianism and the toothless whining on the sidelines it represents. I had come to politics late in life, only about six years ago, so naturally, I had stars in my eyes over it. But when you can’t be bothered to get off your rear and fight against its exact polar opposite, it means less than nothing.

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 11:25 AM

For me, Paul’s statement was offensive b/c he refused to realize that on this small planet, no nation can stand alone. It needs allies.

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:13 AM

How wonderfully one-world collectivist of you.

The UN sends its thanks…

JohnGalt23 on November 15, 2012 at 11:24 AM

OK, Galt. Besides your using exaggeration to an extreme…… How would you handle it if we were attacked again such as on 9/11?

……..tell. Waiting.

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:31 AM

And, Galt, I noticed you didn’t touch the other issues.

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM

I think the guy takes isolationism to an extreme but he’s been one of the very few voices in DC fighting for civil liberties in the last 10 years or so. It’s a shame we won’t have him speaking on our behalf anymore.

Enjoy your slow slide towards a totalitarian regime, America. It will be so much easier when all those things the parties have you squabbling over now like abortion, gun rights, healthcare, religious expression, welfare, medicare, social security, etc will all be decided for you by the glorious federal government. I say “glorious” because by then it will likely be the law that you have to add that adjective to “federal government”.

Benaiah on November 15, 2012 at 11:38 AM

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I agree we should have entered into WWII just to save the Jews…We also should have went into China (49-78,000,000 killed), Congo (8,000,000 killed), USSR (6,000,000 killed), Turkey (1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20), Cambodia (1,700,000 killed), N. Korea (1,600,000 killed), Ethopia (1,500,000 killed), Biafra (1,000,000 killed), Afghanistan (900,000 killed *ohh looks like were back in Afghanistan), Rwanda (800,000 killed), Iran (600,000 killed *you may get your wish after all), Yugoslavia (570,000 killed), Angola (400,000 killed)…and the list goes on and on and on

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 11:25 AM

I’m sorry, but there just are’nt that many exact polar opposites between tham as you might think.

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 11:43 AM

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 11:41 AM

There were Jews in those countries?

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:48 AM

nice to see the gloves come off, and see how some of you view libertarians when you’re not trying to get our vote. I like to believe the GOP talking points about limited govt and personal freedom, but I’ve learned otherwise. at this point in time, the GOP is nothing more than democrat lite.

burserker on November 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Amen. The amount of nastiness and name calling is inversely proportional to your willingness to give Israel billons in borrowed/printed money, sacrifce our children fighting their wars, and ignore anything remotely negative they might do.

The closest analogue on the other side is the red faced union spokeholes who insist that public pensions aren’t destroying municipal budgets. It doesn’t matter what the truth is – only the result.

Until Israel becomes a state, and it shouldn’t, their defense is their business. Regardless of what scripture may or may not say.

Now. Commence name calling. Yawn…..

Kungfoochimp on November 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:48 AM

No, but you get the point right?

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Afghanistan (900,000 killed *ohh looks like were back in Afghanistan), Rwanda (800,000 killed), Iran (600,000 killed *you may get your wish after all), Yugoslavia (570,000 killed), Angola (400,000 killed)…and the list goes on and on and on

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Are you always this nasty?

BTW, Better check that mindreading stuff. You’re not very good at it.

I notice a trend developing here……facts are presented against some person’s hero, and insults and exaggeration insue over one small part of the facts while ignoring the rest.

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:48 AM

No, but you get the point right?

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I get the point YOU ARE trying to make, which has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Until Israel becomes a state, and it shouldn’t, their defense is their business. Regardless of what scripture may or may not say.

So, who makes up these rules and should’s and shouldn’t’s ? Obviously, you think you must outweigh God.

Now. Commence name calling. Yawn…..

Kungfoochimp on November 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Rich. LOL! Considering all the names/insults I’ve seen so far…..

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 12:02 PM

I also found his statement during one the debates in which he participated where he said he ‘wouldn’t have risked American lives just to save Jews’ (during WWII) offensive. What a small little man. As well as being a complete and utter fool.

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:57 AM

There were Jews in those countries?

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:48 AM

So, your point is that we should only intervene if Jews are involved? Please clarify your point if I’m mistaken, because that’s what it sounds like.

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 12:05 PM

How would you handle it if we were attacked again such as on 9/11?

……..tell. Waiting.

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I would do what Paul did: introduce a bill of letters of marque and reprisal to the House that authorizes the president to capture or kill anyone responsible for the attacks.

Your other post was nothing but a bunch of ignorant, progressive garbage, and also ignorant of the role of a Congressman.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 12:07 PM

I think the guy takes isolationism to an extreme but he’s been one of the very few voices in DC fighting for civil liberties in the last 10 years or so. It’s a shame we won’t have him speaking on our behalf anymore.

Enjoy your slow slide towards a totalitarian regime, America. It will be so much easier when all those things the parties have you squabbling over now like abortion, gun rights, healthcare, religious expression, welfare, medicare, social security, etc will all be decided for you by the glorious federal government. I say “glorious” because by then it will likely be the law that you have to add that adjective to “federal government”.

Benaiah on November 15, 2012 at 11:38 AM

He’s a non-interventionist, not an isolationist.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 12:07 PM

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 12:05 PM

No, I was answering an obtuse response from someone to one of my remarks about Paul’s statement about Jews.

Are we going to get into a philosophical debate over the different types of people being slaughtered in this world and you’re going to try to pin me down about who/what/where we should intervene? That I’m considering some people more valuable than others, and not valuing others? With your ending the discussion that we should, therefore, defend no one?

Is that where we are going?

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I also found his statement during one the debates in which he participated where he said he ‘wouldn’t have risked American lives just to save Jews’ (during WWII) offensive. What a small little man. As well as being a complete and utter fool.

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:13 AM

No, I was answering an obtuse response from someone to one of my remarks about Paul’s statement about Jews.

Are we going to get into a philosophical debate over the different types of people being slaughtered in this world and you’re going to try to pin me down about who/what/where we should intervene? That I’m considering some people more valuable than others, and not valuing others? With your ending the discussion that we should, therefore, defend no one?

Is that where we are going?

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 12:08 PM

You sure are cavalier about people’s lives and generous about using other people’s money. Are you a Democrat? You’re certainly arguing their positions. Interventionism is the foreign policy of progressives. There would have been no WWII if it weren’t for Woodrow Wilson and his interventionism. T. Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR: This is who you wish to side with? This is where you want to make your stand?

“Wilson insisted that Americans had the right to travel on armed belligerent ships, holding the Germans to “strict accountability” for American lives lost in submarine attacks. At the same time, he accepted the British hunger blockade of Germany, though this cost many times more lives than the German policy.”

Link

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 12:15 PM

No, I was answering an obtuse response from someone to one of my remarks about Paul’s statement about Jews.

Are we going to get into a philosophical debate over the different types of people being slaughtered in this world and you’re going to try to pin me down about who/what/where we should intervene? That I’m considering some people more valuable than others, and not valuing others? With your ending the discussion that we should, therefore, defend no one?

Is that where we are going?

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Well, Yes. That is where I am going. So, please tell me…Who’s more valuable than who? It’s obvious you believe Jews are more valuable because you believe we should have entered into WWII for the sole purpose of saving the Jews. So my question is, why not save everyone else…Why should we only save the Jews? Why not go into Rowanda?

Defend no one? No…We should defend Americans!

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I could not possibly care less what Ron Paul has to say now, after this election, when he couldn’t be bothered to even be a speed-bump in the path of Barack Obama. If you can’t get off your backside and be an impediment to a guy who is the polar opposite of EVERYTHING you stand for, what good are you?

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM

We cant’ be surprised. Remember, Paul’s accomplished absolutely zero as a member of congress…

And when the heat of battle is on, you can count on Ron Paul to kneecap the more conservative side in the media… I believe his jealousy of ‘impure’ conservatives makes him crazy.

A true useful idiot for the left.

Good riddance, Mr. Paul.

shinty on November 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Early on, someone mentioned Alinsky and it’s worth repeating. A group of people who were conservatives until last May, then became moderates to accommodate a completely inadequate candidate for President, are now back to being conservatives and using Alinsky tactics to go after anyone they don’t agree with. Keep up the name-calling because it further dilutes your cause.

Liberal sheeple are arrogant. Conservative sheeple are ignorant. But you are all in the same pen so the behavior is similar.

Inignort on November 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Liberal sheeple are arrogant. Conservative sheeple are ignorant. But you are all in the same pen so the behavior is similar.

Inignort on November 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Paul’s followers are a big reason why many don’t like him.

shinty on November 15, 2012 at 12:20 PM

We cant’ be surprised. Remember, Paul’s accomplished absolutely zero as a member of congress…

And when the heat of battle is on, you can count on Ron Paul to kneecap the more conservative side in the media… I believe his jealousy of ‘impure’ conservatives makes him crazy.

A true useful idiot for the left.

Good riddance, Mr. Paul.

shinty on November 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM

His accomplishment is saying “no” to government. Don’t blame him; blame your party for saying “yes” to government.

In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.

All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.

The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.

The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.”

Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.

I have 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.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 12:22 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

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 11:25 AM

I’m sorry, but there just are’nt that many exact polar opposites between tham as you might think.

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 11:43 AM

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

shinty on November 15, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Maybe you should just try and listen to what he is saying and put your disagreements with his supporters aside. No one is going to agree with all of someone else’s supporters.

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 12:26 PM

dom89031 on November 15, 2012 at 12:17 PM

LOL! You laid a trap and I didn’t enter, so you had to make up my answer in order to retort. Funny. Wrongo.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 12:15 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

We cant’ be surprised. Remember, Paul’s accomplished absolutely zero as a member of congress…

And when the heat of battle is on, you can count on Ron Paul to kneecap the more conservative side in the media… I believe his jealousy of ‘impure’ conservatives makes him crazy.

A true useful idiot for the left.

Good riddance, Mr. Paul.

shinty on November 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Here, here.

Murf76 on November 15, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:45 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:53 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 9:58 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 10:18 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 10:22 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 10:24 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 10:30 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 11:15 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 11:18 PM
Dante on November 14, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Dante on November 15, 2012 at 12:08 AM
Dante on November 15, 2012 at 7:32 AM
Dante on November 15, 2012 at 7:34 AM
Dante on November 15, 2012 at 7:43 AM
Dante on November 15, 2012 at 9:17 AM
Dante on November 15, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Dante on November 15, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Dante on November 15, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Dante on November 15, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Your little cult of personality leader retired. Game over. Go sell flowers at the airport, troll youtube or god forbid, get a job you delusional shut-in.

V7_Sport on November 15, 2012 at 12:29 PM

OK, Galt. Besides your using exaggeration to an extreme…… How would you handle it if we were attacked again such as on 9/11?

……..tell. Waiting.

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Letters of Marque. Billion dollar bounties. Prosecute members of al-Qaeda as pirates, and have Congress draw up necessary legislation to make that feasible.

What I sure as hell would not do is make promises to democratize the Middle East. I wouldn’t make it the policy of the US to end tyranny in the world. I wouldn’t spend US treasure trying to secure a country that has brought down empires that tried to do the same.

And I sure as hell wouldn’t be drawing up kill lists that included the names of American citizens on them without some sort of judicial oversight.

JohnGalt23 on November 15, 2012 at 12:30 PM

God bless Ron Paul.

rndmusrnm on November 15, 2012 at 12:31 PM

God bless Ron Paul.

rndmusrnm on November 15, 2012 at 12:31 PM

….With a AM radio show between Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura.

V7_Sport on November 15, 2012 at 12:35 PM

I also found his statement during one the debates in which he participated where he said he ‘wouldn’t have risked American lives just to save Jews’ (during WWII) offensive. What a small little man. As well as being a complete and utter fool.

avagreen on November 15, 2012 at 11:13 AM

In fact, we never did risk American military lives to save European Jews.

We risked American military lives to defeat Germany, a nation that had declared war on us.

The American military exists to protect and guarantee the security of American citizens, Jew and Gentile. It does not exist to protect German citizens from their own government, Jewish or otherwise.

Ask Kissinger about that one…

JohnGalt23 on November 15, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Paul’s views are the key to the lock for the next generations and to break the stranglehold of the Dems on Black America. Strangely nothing he says seems anti-thetical to the constitution, yet the so-called conservative defenders of the constitution are the ones most opposed to him. Gee I wish he were the president right now instead of Obambo, but I think there are a lot of people here who prefer the progressive socialism of Obama to constitutionalism of Paul

theblackcommenter on November 15, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4