Ron Paul Still Sucks
Ron Paul’s got the right idea on the war in Iraq, but other than that, the man’s a wingnut. Seriously, my fellow liberals, you might like him, but he hates you. Just take a look at some of what he’s written in his column “Texas Straight Talk”. This is the kind of stuff I’d expect to hear from Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly.
The politically correct religion of our nation has become Secular Humanism; although equivalent to a religion, it is incorrectly passed off by our courts and schools as being neutral with respect to spiritual beliefs and is often used to fill the void by forced exclusion of other beliefs.- “Religious freedom found in following Constitution”
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.
. . .
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.- “Christmas in Secular America”
Those who call for the abolition of the electoral college are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.
The electoral college threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Voters in southern, midwestern, and western states- derided as “flyover” country– tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.
- “The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule”
The left may be more permissive toward lurid or obscene material, but it has zero tolerance for political, religious, and social commentary that falls outside the bounds of rigid political correctness doctrines it created. Liberals are happy to restrict so-called commercial speech; happy to jail those who commit phony hate crimes merely by speaking their minds; and happy to impose speech codes on college campuses.
The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The electoral college likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college.
By contrast, election of the President by pure popular vote totals would damage statehood. Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California and New York could win a national election with very little support in dozens of other states! A popular vote system simply would intensify the populist pandering which already dominates national campaigns.
Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the electoral college system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states’ rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The electoral college system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.
- “Hands Off the Electoral College”
The administration and the media, except for Fox News Network, have a passionate hatred for the Cuban-American community and a love affair with Fidel Castro. Liberals profess to champion the right of all minority groups–except for Cuban-Americans who do not play the role of victim. The best way to understand this antagonism is to look at the way the liberal left treats Clarence Thomas. The fact that Thomas made it all the way to the Supreme Court should please those looking for successful members of minority groups. Instead, the left passionately despise Supreme Court Justice Thomas because he rejects the welfare state, the tool used by them to maintain political control over large minority groups willing to be victimized.
Despite what Ron Paul supporters insisted in response to my earlier post, this isn’t a bunch of recycled NeoCon propaganda. This is Ron Paul in his own words (or at least, those of his “ghost writers”). I don’t care if he can explain away his views under the consistent political philosophy of smaller government and states rights, I strongly disagree with him more than I disagree with any Democrats running for President.
47 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
But this is primary season. The question is, do you disagree with Ron Paul more or less than you do with Rudy Giuliani, or Mitt Romney.
If you can’t support Ron Paul for President, can you support him for GOP Nominee?
Later.
Comment by Kevin Houston — August 9, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Well you know as a liberal who grew up in various scenarios I can say I wholeheartedly support Ron Paul. I grew up around hippies , punkers, intellectuals, athiests, pagans christians etc..My point is I guess I might not personally like Ron Paul either but his philosophy of freedom and respect for privacy will do more to help sustain my liberal lifestyle then any democrat. Are you for the drug war? who do you think that mostly effects minorities and liberals. I like to go to protests and be political, the dems wont protect those rights (unless I’m protesting a repub of course). I would much rather have an old white curmudgeon who preserves my freedom than a feelgood Obama or Hillary who will continue the police state, bomb Iran, promote censorship (political correctness) etc… to me the choice is easy. Its not about liberal versus conservative it is about people versus the power. wake up dude!
Comment by joshuabrucel — August 9, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
I would say from these writings he loves us and wants us to have freedom.
What, you don’t want people to have religious freedom? Ooops I forgot, only if they are MUSLIMS.
Comment by skeptic — August 9, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Key word: Ghost Writers, which Ron Paul has discredited as his own columns many times. Do people BOTHER to do research anymore? Seriously, when you found this, I bet you RUSHED to make a blog posting out of it. Ron Paul has publicly discredited all these columns, including the ones where people make him out to be racist.
He does believe in relgion, but believes more that religion and politics SHOULD NOT BE INTERTWINED (he has said this in many interviews, further proof that you haven’t done any research).
You sir are proof that all you Anti-Paulities are mindless drones, LOOKING for a reason to hate the guy.
You know why I love the internet? Because Bill O-Reiley can cut off mics, and Hannity and Colmes can be biased and almost no one can respond, but the beauty of the internet, is that you can be called out by almost anyone and everyone. Why do you think Ron Paul has a huge following on the internet? Do you really think people just woke up one day and decided to support this guy in record numbers?
Get educated. Is it merely coincidence that most people who make anti-ron paul comments haven’t properly researched the facts? I don’t know, you tell me.
Comment by the rEVOLution — August 9, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Blue or Red what’s the difference?
joshuabrucel is right – Wake up!! It’s all about power and money.
Hillary,Rudy,McCain,Edwards, Obama …whoever – no difference.
Ron Paul is not voting for the lesser of two evils.
He’s about voting for Freedom & Liberty.
If Ron Paul is not nominated in Minneapolis next September the Republicans WILL LOSE the White House.
Comment by granny miller — August 9, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
His views about the term “secular” and what “the left” wants to do with religion are total crackpottery. But the stuff about hate crimes and speech codes are true enough. But he lumps anyone on “the left” into this camp, and that’s a shame.
BTW – I’ll be voting for him in the primaries. So there.
Comment by Juke — August 9, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Let’s all remember, where the people go the leaders will follow and we’re turning back to the Constitution – PERIOD!
Comment by Scott — August 9, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
Astroturf much?
Comment by Damien — August 9, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
I can understand that as a liberal you would probably prefer Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel. I totally respect that. And I support them too. I just think this country would be far better off with Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul.
All the other candidates are owned by special-interest groups or members of the Council of Foreign Relations CFR (that wonderful group that has brought us every major war of the past 50 years). The only hope for America is to dig deeper for candidates not owned by the power elite.
A big problem with our electoral process is that the old media generally supports the richest candidates (who got their money from special interest). Those are the worst candidates because they are owned by special-interest and lobbyists. Hopefully the internet will help restore balance and choice.
Americans want change in Washington! The American people are against those in Washington starting illegal preemptive unnecessary wars, spying on the American people, and spending money they do not have. That is why disproval ratings of Congress and President are at historic lows. Americans want change! Americans want a leader who actually believes in the Constitution, which is incredibly rare in Washington these days.
Ron Paul voted against the Iraq War from the beginning. He voted against the Patriot Act.
Dr. Ron Paul is not owned by special-interest, military-industrial-complex, corporations, bankers, lobbyists, etc. His courageous 20 year voting record proves this very clearly. Fix the system and vote Ron Paul. And tell everyone you know. Now is the time to set ourselves free.
70% of Americans want us out of Iraq and want change. Ron Paul is only republican candidate against the war. Ron Paul only needs about 30% vote from republicans sick of the war and abuse of powers to win in republican primaries.
This means we actually have a change to get a good, honest person not owned by special-interest-evildoers into the White House. This strange situation is a once in lifetime event. We need to take advantage of it.
I know Ron Paul may not be your favorite but he really is better than most.
Visit YouTube and search Ron Paul to learn more…
Join the Revolution — Vote Ron Paul!
Comment by Ben Frank — August 9, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
The only other thing I could suggest. Is instead of trying to finding the most extreme things you disagree with you might instead find many many things that you can agree with. For example, Ron Paul is hard core in defending personal liberty, eliminating draconian federal government oppression, and supporting civil liberties more than most any other candidate. He even supports stopping the evil and pointless war on drugs as just one example.
Comment by Ben Frank — August 9, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
I forgot to mention but I think I implied it. Is that all these major candidates are owned by the exact SAME special interest groups. So the power elite wins regardless of which party you vote for. Hilary Clinton is owned by the same power elite as Rudy Giuliani as Barack Obama, as Mitt Romney. The two party system is a scam. They argue over pointless stuff but on big corrupt things they all agree. All owned, bought, and paid for by same special interest groups.
Voting for Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul is our chance to say “screw you power elite who have been f***ing up our country for fifty years. We are taking america back!”
Sorry it’s nearly 3 AM and I’ve had much wine which has been made legal after the evil prohibition. So if you delete my posts I will understand. Thank you for bringing up the Ron Paul topic. Trust me, he ain’t so bad. Let’s help America.
Comment by Ben Frank — August 9, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
You disagree, but you don’t say why. Where’s your position to argue? It’s always people like you who have to resort to calling their target names when they don’t have any real viewpoint to argue. You’re a wingnut!
Comment by John Galt — August 10, 2007 @ 3:58 am
Everything said in the article about the Electoral College is true. Big gov’t statists hate it (liberals, if you want).
Case in point: flashback to November 2000, the election results between Bush and Gore were just beginning to be disputed. Who was the first one out of the gate trashing the Electoral College? The newly elected junior senator from New York state… Hillary Clinton.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/10/politics/main248645.shtml
But if you want New York and California to decide every presidential election, go ahead and get rid of the Electoral College, and embrace the tyranny of the majority (i.e., extreme democracy, mob rule).
Comment by Sleep Dog — August 10, 2007 @ 5:47 am
I love it! A post saying RP is a flake is responded to by everyone asserting he is the only truly sane candidate in the race.
Ben, yes, we need to vote for a candidate that has the potential for reversing the disatrous political business as usual path we’ve been on for decades now. But I suggest that rather than dividing our votes between the three candidates you suggest, we all solidify behind RP.
Luc
Comment by Luc — August 10, 2007 @ 6:55 am
I think we can all agree that Ron Paul is far better than any of the other republican candidates who want to turn America into a ‘police state’ and bomb the whole middle east (women and children included). So lets please try to constructively fix this horrible mess.
Sincerely,
B. Frank
Comment by Ben Frank — August 10, 2007 @ 9:43 am
Luc,
You’re probably right. It does seem that Ron Paul has the best chance of winning given his grass roots support. For whatever reason Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel just aren’t getting the same growth. Either way, we need to fix america.
Comment by Ben Frank — August 10, 2007 @ 10:16 am
Actually B. Frank, based on what Greg has posted, and the remarkably poor defenses from Ron Paul supporters, I suspect I would prefer any of the three major Republican candidates as president over Ron Paul. It doesn’t really matter too much, since I vote in the Democratic primaries, so luckily don’t have to make that particular lesser-of-evils choice.
Comment by Autumn Harvest — August 10, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Sigh. These comments make me sad. There’s no room for nuance in opinion anymore. I feel like the two-party system brainwashes everyone into thinking you are with us or against us. I, too, like what Ron Paul has to say about the war. In essence, we fucked up, let’s de-fuck quickly. At the same time, he clearly advocates positions I disagree with. In fact, it seems that he and I would disagree on most issues on the domestic front. And the language he uses is vitriolic to say the least. I can not support a candidate that could be so disrespectful.
A couple of other notes:
“Statist”? Is that new? I’m not familiar with that one. Is that what Libertarians call fascists that are from the left? Can someone help a brother out here?
I should point out that the electoral college entrenches elites. There’s not a hell of lot of individual liberty in having my vote count 69 times less than some dude’s from Wyoming. (SoCal, holla!) I wait with bated breath for a viable third party candidate to get enough votes to send the election to Congress. There, each state would receive one vote. The California delegation will gather and haggle about their constituencies, and which candidate is the best representative over all, trying to coalesce 36 million people into one vote. Meanwhile, the three dudes from Wyoming could actually call home to find out what folks want–how convenient for them. I know libertarianism is a rich man’s philosophy, but come on. Just because you like to do drugs doesn’t mean you have to buy this guy’s whole bag.
I’m going to guess that Ron Paul, and all of his supporters, would shoot down things like Rural Electrification. Way to think things through there, Ron.
Comment by Jeb — August 10, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Jeb, in answer to your question of what is ’statist’. Statism is a term to describe any economic system where a government implements a significant degree of centralized economic planning, which may include state ownership of the means of production, as opposed to a system where the overwhelming majority of economic planning occurs at a decentralized level by private individuals in a relatively free market.
Jeb, Regarding Rural Electrification and most anything else, is generally handled best, with less waste, at the local and state levels. The more power you give the federal gov the more dangerous they become as has been demonstrated multiple time in history. Need to balance out the power as much as possible or ya end up with a dictatorship like what happened the democratic republics of Rome circa 70 B.C. and Germany circa 1932.
Autumn Harvest, I did not try to defend Ron Paul’s points above because I could care less about any of the issues listed above like electoral college, etc. I am far more concerned about those in Washington starting illegal preemptive unnecessary wars, spying on the American people, and spending money they do not have. After we fix that then I will fully support any changes you suggest to the electoral college and removal of christmas decorations.
Comment by Ben Frank — August 10, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Ben,
The rise of the Nazis was primarily due to the resentment created by economic failure of Germany due to the obligations placed on it after its defeat in WW I. The dictatorship came about because the Germans wanted a strong leader to reform the country and make it powerful again. The power was very “balanced out” before that. There were 30 odd parties in the democratic system– a point the Nazis used to illustrate the puported chaos in Germany that they would resolve. If RP’s putesarchistic policies are enacted, do you think the American people will be able to resist such a temptation as the infrastructure and institutions further crumble? They seemed pretty keen on the notion of an infalible leader in 2004.
Being opposed to the Iraq wars and the “war on drugs” does not mean RP will not facilitate the forces that led to those things. Or even that he’ll stop them– it’s not like the rest of his party are with him on that.
Comment by me — August 11, 2007 @ 1:12 am
B. Frank, if you seriously think that my problem with RP is that I want Christmas decorations removed, we have a pretty serious disconnect. The “War on Christmas” is a lunatic fantasy made up by social conservatives who want to pretend that Christians are a persecuted minority in America. So my problem with RP is that I have trouble respecting any politician who seriously argues that liberals are collectivist atheists who want to ban Christmas and end Christianity.
It’s clear that all you RP supporters have completely missed Greg’s point. Greg was saying that RP is no friend of liberals. So yeah, John Galt and Sleep Dog, Greg didn’t explain what was wrong with what RP said. But Greg doesn’t need to, because what RP said is self-evidently lunacy to any liberal. If you really think that liberals are an insane collective mass who want to ban Christmas, love Castro, and are like affirmative action because it helps oppress minorities, then fine, support RP; I think these beliefs are crazy, but I don’t particularly want to argue about them with you. But Greg’s point was that RP is not some wonderful blend of great liberal and great conservative positions, but a hard-core, fanatical, Fox-news-loving social conservative, who any intelligent liberal should run screaming from. The defenses from RP supporters, far from arguing against this, actually support Greg, by defending RP with “Gosh, what RP said makes sense; Greg, why don’t you respond, and explain why liberals aren’t a bunch of evil nujobs.” And somehow I don’t find Granny Miller’s threat that if RP doesn’t get the nomination, “. . .the Republicans WILL LOSE the White House” all that scary.
Comment by Autumn Harvest — August 12, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Um, Ron Paul LOVES the individual. I don’t think that man even has the HATE emotion.
Comment by John — August 20, 2007 @ 11:33 am
I have to agree with Ben Frank on most points. The largest problem with most policies domestic and foreign here is that they have been preframed and predetermined by special interest groups (complexes military-industrial, prison-industrial, pharmaceutical-industrial, etc.) These special interest machines run and feed themselves so it really doesn’t matter who is supposedly at the “wheel” so to speak: special interests drive policy makers, not the other way around unfortunately. The only solution I can think of is to bleed them dry (defund), which an RP presidency would begin to do.
Look, this country is much too large to be governed by a centralized federal plutocracy that can’t even begin to represent the diversity that exists here. The solution is to decentralize through DEVOLUTION (via the UK model: see Scotland ‘97 for example).
So let’s change the slogan: instead of the Ron Paul Revolution let’s have the RON PAUL DEVOLUTION!!!!
Comment by PaddyFatHands — August 20, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
“This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state.”
–just what exactly is there to debate here? I’m an atheist, but find this a completely valid statement.
so what’s the problem? as a liberal are you insulted by being called ‘collectivist’? or ’statist’? well then stop being a liberal! wake up, discover individualism. (you don’t even have to go to church, but it helps if you smile once in a while..)
Comment by Kyle — August 20, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
Agreeing with most of the comments, your quoted passage does nothing but to show that Paul is clearly the most sane and rational candidate for president. If you read my blog, you will realise that I am a fairly “liberal” person in the sense of a classical liberal. I believe in personal freedom and minimum government necessary to create the conditions of prosperity for the people and the Earth.
If you accept the socialist State, then individually, Paul’s policies are incongruous with such a State. As a philosophy and larger picture, Paul’s ideas make a great deal of consistent sense. His vision for the World is better than that Republocrat status quo. We desperately need a revolution.
Comment by Pace — August 20, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
I’ve been bitching about the corrupt republican fascist politicians for six years because they are attacking our freedoms. Then the Dems won both houses of Congress and I thought things would improve. Instead there is no urgency to restore habeas corpus, and on illegal wiretapping they voted to give Bush all that he wanted and MORE. So I say fuck them too. Like my old grandma, Ron Paul is a cranky opinionated Christian – you get that old and you’re bound to have some prejudices and religious delusions. But RP’s congressional voting record clearly demonstrates that he is not interested in a US Christian theocracy and can keep his personal religion out of government. In contrast to every other candidate from both disgustingly corrupt parties, a vote for RP is a vote for FREEDOM.
Comment by Ryan — August 21, 2007 @ 6:13 am
Well, the thing you have to consider is what can Ron Paul do to you? Really under States’ Rights Liberal states such as Massachusetts will be more empowered and have more money than every before. I could never understand for the life of me why Liberals are so dead set on making the whole country conform to their views in such an all or nothing scenario. I don’t care what state I don’t live in does, have socialism, hell have communism, I don’t live there and I can tolerate diversity. The Statist view of all or nothing at a federal level is disasterous and is there any guessing why we have been so divided for the past twenty years? Does anyone actually think that California and Mississippi will ever come to the same views on government? I view the vast majority of liberals as patriotic citizens, the only difference between a true liberal and a true conservative is that we want to use different means to basically achieve the same ends, a better America. I don’t think putting all our tax money in one city will accomplish this. I am not against other states being as liberal as they want to be, that is the beauty of having fifty choices versus one. Frankly it would be very refreshing to see more liberals adopt a Federally Libertarian, liberal at a state and local level type ideology. I wish Dr. Paul would make the distinction in jurisdiction more clear.
Comment by PBronstein — August 21, 2007 @ 8:15 am
So, you’re happy with killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and nuking Iran, as long as we get mob rule and destroy the Constitution here at home?
As long as your priorities are straight….
Comment by james — August 21, 2007 @ 8:27 am
i hope you liberals can find the compromise in you to switch your party in order to vote for Ron Paul in the republican primaries,- because the G.O.P. as a whole, hates him. he threatens their power. if he gets elected to the party he’s going to clean house in the general election.
take care
Comment by Lawrence Boyer — August 22, 2007 @ 6:11 am
Honestly, I really don’t care what things Ron Paul doesn’t or does stand for. I do care that he is the only honest candidate running. I much rather have an honest candidate that tells it like it is than a liar like Hillary Clinton, or Obama, or a flip flopper like Romney
Comment by Joe Lawson — August 22, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
How much religion can be in the state has been a strongly contested and debated issue since the founding of this country, and perhaps even longer.
While I do not agree with Ron Paul’s position in this case (presuming this is in fact his writing/opinion), I have found that it is not unusual on either side of the debate for proponents to feel like their “side” is under attack. Anytime something religious is removed from something governmental whether a courthouse wall, or a federal monument there are Christians that feel as though they are under attack.
The reverse is also true. I have encountered many Democrats who felt that prayer by public officials at government events (like legislative sessions) as stepping stones to a future Christian fascist state. In other words if they do not fight it it will get worse, and the state will begin oppressing those of other faiths or of no faith.
I have certainly felt frustrated in my life when I had to endure the head-bowing and prayer at events funded via tax dollars (like graduation and the opening of a new public park) as an atheist. I can only imagine how persons would feel who were Jewish, Islamic, or followed some other faith.
The liberal and not-so-liberal left is a big group of people and so is the right. Anytime anyone says “the left would do this…” or “the right would do that…” they are making a big generalization that will strike some as a little loony.
It amazes me the capacity of both sides to ignore the elitism, corruption, and big government corporatism that is clearly present in their own party while criticizing these attributes in the other party.
Actually it amazes me that anyone who ever described themselves as a “liberal” could vote for John Kerry, or that anyone who ever described themselves as “conservative” could vote for Bush.
I am a pro-choice atheist, (i.e. secular humanist), and I love Ron Paul, because while he may believe in Christianity, he has stated explicitly that he supports the 1st amendment that congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion…
I disagree that decisions on abortion should be made at the state level. I think it should be made at the ultimate local level by individuals and doctors, but I understand his position on the issue.
Meanwhile the idea that politicians are somehow disrespectful if they do not attempt to water down or hide strong opinions that they hold for the benefit of those that disagree with them is simply an appalling position to have. It is what is wrong with this country – 2-faced politicians that talk about nothing.
Our capitals are full of people who try to avoid publicly having any strong opinion on anything because anytime you take a position you risk losing votes.
The reason so many of you can disagree with Ron Paul is he has been generous enough to tell you where he stands. What seems loony and eccentric in the political sphere is actually an trait we call “honesty” everywhere else.
Comment by Rainbough — August 23, 2007 @ 11:11 am
[...] I disagree with any Democrats running for President. Links to all of the above quotes at the link: The Talent Show Ron Paul Still Sucks __________________ . No one could have predicted that training and arming a bunch of people [...]
Pingback by Whats the latest sentiment towards Ron Paul? - SpartanTailgate.com - Michigan State Spartans Forums — September 5, 2007 @ 10:35 am
I think after 8 years of Bush, everyone would learn that giving the central government power over your life is a bad idea. But big government liberals and conservatives still want to use government to impose their economic & social views on the whole nation. Small government liberals & conservatives disagree with each other on minor issues, but they both prefer to live their own life instead of directing others.
Comment by Matt — September 10, 2007 @ 6:38 am
Ron Paul is for freedom. I like what he says.
RON PAUL!!!! 2008
Comment by Jess — November 13, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
[...] me laugh my ass off. I know his supporters are sincere in their love of Ron Paul (even if I think they’re fools for supporting the loon), but some of the publicity stunts these guys come up with are almost like [...]
Pingback by The Talent Show » One Small Step For Man... — November 27, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Ron Paul is RIGHT! If the Liberals and Feminazis get their way we’ll all be sitting in Hillary-camps singing Kum-Bay-Yah while being force-fed soy turkey with hemp forks. Nothing says privacy like outlawing abortion or banning flag-burning, but I want to ask an important question of Ron Paul: Do you support gun rights for Iranian immigrants? Just asking.
As for Ron Paul’s call for ending the Iraq war, I LOVE the smell of single-issue worship in the morning. It smells like VICTORY (gin).
Comment by Blogtopus — November 28, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Ron Paul actually represents the last hope for freedom here in America, and by proxy, the rest of the world.
Your attacking him is tyranny to your country. He stands up for you, the little American working man. Not for big corporate interests. If he did, you’d see him soliciting funding from .. er, Rupert Murdoch? (google Hillary Murdoch).
NOT getting 35,000 little contributers in a single day raising 4.3 million dollars.
Look at his voting record before you attack the man. I guarantee just about every American can appreciate his statesmanship in this time of crisis in this country.
Ron Paul 2008.
Comment by Damian — November 29, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
It’s intersting how RP discredited the writer’s who wrote his opinion about the black men being dangerous and that black people are potential terrorist, and much more racist comments.
This is interesting because ghost writers write IN THE OPINION OF THE PERSON THEY ARE WRITING FOR!
Also, if he really doesn’t believe the terrible things said in the Ron Paul Political Report, he wouldn’t have allowed it to be produced.
So that either means he agrees with what he said and is only blaming it on the ghostwriters because people don’t want to vote for racists, or he doesn’t read what his ghostwriters write.
Both are stupid.
Oh correction, people do vote for racists and people who don’t care about racism vote for racists.
Comment by sasha — December 1, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
If liberals are really invested in “winning” a Democrat into the Whitehouse, and they dont care who among the current nominees does the job, then the strategic thing to do is jump ship and support someone like Huckabee, who’d be destroyed in the general election.
Comment by Ian — December 1, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
Forget ron paul, the man is an extremist on all fronts, he believes in deporting “illegals” and will probably keep troops in iraq. Being for my people, fuck ron paul.
Comment by Pedro — January 29, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
Let’s see, the media hates RP, both parties hate RP, the CFR hate RP.. RP has solid answers to questions he is given, even though in the debates they tried hard to slam him and give the easy questions to the CFR cronies.. I say the choice is clear, if the establishment hates him I love the guy!!! 40% of my taxes go to illegal alien bums and welfare babies.. I’ve had enough, Ron Paul will get my vote because I am a true American and I want my countries constitution enforced and brought back to the front!!! I want my borders protected and monitored just like any other country would.. Anyone else will not do this period!!! If America votes obama or mccain America does not deserve liberty or security, America deserves stupidity…
Comment by greg — February 14, 2008 @ 5:25 am
pedro sucks and should do us a favor and fix mexico so the leaches stop sucking up my tax money.. I don’t feel like eating dog food because pedro’s illegal buddies stole my social security money.. fuck pedro!!!
Comment by greg — February 14, 2008 @ 5:29 am
hey sasha if race does’nt matter why do 80% of blacks vote obama or democrats automatically? it is racism on both sides hipocrite!!
Comment by greg — February 14, 2008 @ 5:31 am
Ron Paul -does- suck.
I am a Pro-Choice Libertarian that is also sick of the hero worship for a man that won’t even use the word, ‘libertarian’, unless backed in to a corner.
He says that he is a Republican with Constitutionalist leanings, and he is.
He is proudly and consistently anti-abortion and has tried to give millions of fetus’s the same rights of real Americans, which seems -very- big-government to me. (see Sanctity of Life)
How can such a smart doctor like him not recognize the ill effect on our community to force the continued import of millions of unwanted children?
He loves the Constitution except for the words, ‘persons born’, and his mantra of late, that the decision should be relegated to the States, is a lie.
How can you trust a Republican that -used to be- libertarian, but does not respect Body-Ownership Rights of Individuals already born?
Ronpaulicans get very mad at me because I make Paul’s anti-Choice platform a -huge- sticking point, but many of them simply don’t realize that it is -he- that makes it the big issue.
HELL, I would love to see our troops come home, and see the end of the FED and the IRS, but I want a leader I can TRUST.
In, short, a rich old white Christian Republican will never lead a successful revolution for Liberty.
~Ron Boozell aka stoneman76
yahoo’s largest libertarian group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyBandwagon/
Comment by Ron Boozell — February 14, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
Everything I have read comes off as almost pure strong opinion. Most of this writing sounds like it is utterly motivated by a strong opinion by an individual. Actually logically thinking… its exactly what propaganda sounds like. So who hired you? Council on foreign relations? Obama Campaign? What are you going to do?? lock me up because I think your just another person who feels they need to say something? Sounds like this is a prep for incase ron paul’s “Revolution” actually does have an impact on the next election because you know they are not going to be easily shut down like this past election. You want a leader you can trust?? O yea Obama is very trust worthy! Voted for the bailout…and paid his buddies, Benefited from fannie & freddie establishments, Rev Wain Wright 20 years loyal church goer untill he runs for pres?? ties with Bill Ayers who is another accused marxist and lenin Idealist) and is related to Bush….
Source: guardian.co.uk home
“Barack Obama often makes a joke in his campaign speeches about a genealogical survey last year that found he is a distant cousin of Dick Cheney. Now there is double bad news for Obama: a new survey out today found he is related to George Bush as well.
Researchers at the New England Historic Genealogical Society, founded in 1845, said Obama, the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya, can call six US presidents his cousins: both Bushes, Ford, Johnson, Truman and James Madison.
The genealogical society, a non-profit organisation, found he is also related to Churchill.
The organisation said it investigated the bloodlines of the three presidential hopefuls. One of the oddest is that Obama is related to Brad Pitt and Hillary Clinton to his partner, Angelina Jolie.
Clinton, who is of French-Canadian descent on her mother’s side, is a distant cousin of Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette. Other distant cousins include writer Jack Kerouac and Camilla Parker-Bowles.
Obama and President Bush are 10th cousins, once removed, linked by Samuel Hinkley of Cape Cod, who died in 1662. Pitt and Obama are ninth cousins, linked by Edwin Hickman, who died in Virginia in 1769. Clinton and Jolie are ninth cousins, twice removed, both related to Jean Cusson who died in Quebec in 1718.”
Source Chicago Suntimes
BY SCOTT FORNEK Political Editor
“It sure would be an awkward family reunion. But, believe it or not, Barack Obama is related to both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
OK, distantly related: Obama and Bush are 11th cousins.
That’s because they share the same great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents — Samuel Hinckley and Sarah Soole Hinckley of 17th century Massachusetts.
That means Obama and former President George Herbert Walker Bush are 10th cousins once removed.
Obama is related to Cheney through Mareen Duvall, a 17th century immigrant from France.
Mareen and Susannah Duvall were Obama’s great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents and Cheney’s great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents.
That makes Obama and Cheney ninth cousins once removed.
Cheney and Bush are related to one another by a completely different common ancestor.
We leave it to you to figure out their relationship.”
source: BBC NEWS
“It has emerged that Barack Obama is a tenth cousin, once removed, of the man whose job he wants – George W Bush.
They are linked by Samuel Hinkley of Cape Cod, who died in 1662.
Mr Obama is also a distant cousin of the actor Brad Pitt while Hillary Clinton is related to Mr Pitt’s girlfriend, Angelina Jolie.
The ties of the US Democratic rivals were established by a respected US genealogical organisation after three years’ investigation.
Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama can also boast a long list of other famous relations.
Christopher Child, from the New England Historic Genealogical Society, says that the politicians’ ancestries show they have more in common than they think.
The Society, founded in 1845, is the oldest and biggest non-profit genealogical organisation in the United States.
The research, conducted by Mr Child and Gary Boyd Roberts, came up with some extraordinary family connections.”
Theres more articles new york post, rawstory, and the list goes on etc…
If ron paul supporters piss you off, then Boo freakn HOO! Cry a river and march for your marxist and communist accused leader Obama. Hes somebody everyone can trust. until he makes it a crime, ron Paul supporters will continue the movement. Wont matter how great you market these opinions. Abortion is an extremely sensitive subject for females and I respect that but then you have fundamentalist christians who want to protect the unborn… maybe if we practiced better prevention techniques and have kids understand.. I dont even know. your solution is just a radical as Pauls, Mine… And joe Six pack. Its not an issue the Government needs to intervene unless congress rules it to be an issue of national security. then attempts of legislation to cure the symptoms can be implemented. Plus people are smart and dont even need a Doctor for the abortion drink alcohol, smoke ciggs, take exlax, drink soda, eat microwaved food, chug vinegar, use a hangar fuck it what ever to get it done because it is so important not to have the baby… Maybe if you took more caution like protection, birth control, the day after pill, keep ur pants on…. I dont know. I can understand rape cases… but abortion is not a issue that can be resolved by criminalizing or decriminalizing. Just need trojan to toss out more samples at at the appropriate locations… IDK!! Point is, your just blasting your opinion. Im willing to give Obama a chance. I just hope he isnt another puppet for the bankers and corp elite.
Comment by Joshua Blanco — November 7, 2008 @ 9:29 am
Ron Paul = The Constitution, all the policies he talks about are not new, he simply wants to bring them back weve strayed so far from what the founders of this country intended that his ideas may seem extreme but in reality its the things we consider the norm today that are extreme.
Comment by Adam — November 9, 2008 @ 7:31 am
And as far as his stance on abortion, it wont even matter he wants to bring the states powers back to them, which means it will be voted on in the individual states and i guarantee you all 50 states arent gonna be anti abortion
Comment by Adam — November 9, 2008 @ 7:35 am