Ron Paul Retires.... What does this mean for you US economy?

OK. OK. I get it. Ron Paul the Hero.
It's Black and White (sorry - it's white, he doesn't like Black)
He is not like other politicians. He is only interested in liberty and small government and a gold standard.
He's for legalising drugs. I like that. He's blanket opposed to abortion. I don't like that. He wants small government. I like that. He has a small 'h' handshake relationship with a number of racist ratbags. I don't like that.
Basically he's a politician.
He would have changed the world if only he'd had another 30 years in Congress.

And he's smart too:

oops sorry don't read that link it's just anti-Paul propaganda.

And even though American politics is a corrupt manifestation of the military industrial complex and the path from Congressman to millionaire status is guaranteed, I'm sure Mr Paul never took one cent that wasn't handed to him by the free market. (can I say the free market for racist right wing newsletters that earn you a million a year, or is that just being mean?)

I take the points above about Messengers and Messages.
OK, so I have no interest in 'Leaders', but I still fail to see why people choose to lionise an ordinary politician with such flimsy real world credentials, but a good line in demagoguery.

There you are - the third dumbest thing you've all read - again.

I repeat:
Don't follow leaders. Watch the parking meters.

 

Ron Paul is a rascist?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9j0[/youtube]

 

Dont follow leaders, watch the parking meters...not the Bob Dylan version.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KORmxfOCdM[/youtube]

 

I actually liked Ron Paul, he was quite refreshing to listen to compared to all the other nit witts that he was up against.

Watch this it's a bit of a laugh :lol:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igQlbesF0zA[/youtube]

 

I completely agree with you about the leaders thing.

Do you really not like him at all? I get the point about lionising and such and I agree, I think it's true of anyone not just politicians, but I still think there are inspiring people out there to differing degrees. I hate the word heroes and things like that, but I think he says a lot of worthwhile things and he seems mostly genuine from what I can tell, which is something quite bizarre to say about any politician. I've never seen a hint of racism from him, in fact quite the reverse. He's not some perfect being though, and while there was a time I thought he could do some good as President I'm long past that now.

EDIT: oh and I'm going to suck up and say you are far from dumb.

 

Not trying to troll - but look harder.

From the above link:

and
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man

Maybe he reformed around the time he joined the Republican Party and three cheers that he brought the Fed and a number of other issues to the notice of the public from his lectern. I applaud Alex Jones and a variety of other 'commentators' both leftist, rightist and plain loopy that I come across in my internet travels for similarly bringing matters to our attention. Even loopy Ann Barnhardt and the old pencil pusher Lindsay Williams.

Maybe Paul is a nice old man who disavows his previous activities, but the maxim that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely applies to all leaders -even the ones talking about liberty and justice for all.

So that's that. I don't think much of him or others of his ilk. Some of you do. Fine that's politics.

 

Nothing Paul has ever been recorded as saying is remotely racist. The closest you could get is his defence of private property rights and the corresponding amendment (I forget), which when amended back in the 1950/60's to stop discrimination WRT blacks etc which in essence watered down private property rights. Right or wrong, he was simply defending the constitutional property rights of individuals.

 

I've been presented with those newsletter references online before. Do you believe that with all the time demands of being a politician he wrote or even read through everything (or in fact anything!) in those newsletters? Trying to attribute everything in a long newsletter to Paul is stretching a very long bow.

 

Perhaps he isn't a racist. Maybe he just wanted the racist votes and funding back then, just like he wanted the non-racist votes and funding later on. Fair trade. He turned down the annual Wall Street bribes and good on him, but he had to get the money for re-election from somewhere and since about 90% of campaign funding comes from 'little people' maybe he's just being responsive to them. They don't want 'racist' so he buries it. Big deal. He's a politician. That's what they do. Whatever is required.

I'd be interested to know if there was another 'honest' politician in Congress - or was Ron Paul the only one?

 

There was really only ever Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

 

Prove it. Newsletters that he didn't write and has repeatedly disavowed don't count. He is against racism and every other form of collectivist "ism"s. You cannot be a champion for liberty without championing individuals. Classes are anathema. He has written/spoken on this topic many times.

Replace gold standard with "sound money" (see his bills for legalizing competing currencies to understand the difference). I ask you, is a primary interest in the foundations of liberty and prosperity a bad thing?

He's not for "legalising" drugs. He is for decriminalizing them at the Federal level. If states like California, Colorado, etc. want to legalize medical marijuana, FedGov has no business interfering. If states like Nebraska want to ban meth, that's fine too.

He wants a small FEDERAL government. The distinction is important. The more local the level of government that wields power, the more control/voice citizens have in effecting their will.

Ron Paul spoke to a lot of [politically taboo] issues with honesty that has long been absent in American politics. It has educated millions of people and sparked a movement/battle for control of the GOP. Ron may have retired, but the extent of his legacy is yet to be determined. $.02

 

I'm also interested in Julie's comment about him being a politician "with such flimsy real world credentials"?

Could you please expand on that Julie?

 

"Paul has said that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue.""

He may be anti-abortion, but he doesn't believe the federal government should get a say.

 

Google is available to everyone
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/poli...long-record-glorious-failures-congress/46661/

http://www.dailypaul.com/229278/ron-pauls-accomplishments

No proof offered for any of above. He's retired. I don't care.

And b.t.w. Politics is the art of the possible. A successful politician gets re-elected. And from my earlier post:
Demagogue
a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

Don't follow leaders.

 

I wouldn't call any of that to flimsy real world credentials. I would call that having integrity and being the one gem in a whole bunch of bad apples.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/-pKb4U5qDsc

 

JulieW - your first quote seems to be in direct conflict with your earlier assertions that Ron is exactly like every other Congress critter. Must be nice to have your cake and eat it too.

BTW, I live in CD14 - Ron's former Congressional District. Now that Randy Weber is my new Rep., I'm going to have to start contacting his office every time Congress is considering onerous legislation to regulate the internet, expand the DHS police state (FISA, Patriot Act, etc.), extend bailouts, etc. to let him know how his constituents feel. I never had to do that while Ron was my Rep.

Your Google-foo apparently wasn't strong enough to find this: http://www.dailypaul.com/218779/former-lobbyist-says-ron-paul-is-a-rarity-and-cant-be-bought

 

JulieW, you seem to be pretty darn dishonest in the way you approaching your critique.

You are using sideways reasoning from stating something true, to inferring something stupid.

The fact you would use "isolationism" in your attack shows your intellectual dishonesty and that you like to parrot the lingo used by the establishment.

Second, you state this quote "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Ron Paul

... to affirm Paul wants some type of theocracy. This is utter non-sense.

Paul is correct when he says that a RIGID separation was never intended for, and if you happened to actually understand what goes in on Washington (congressional prayer, 10 commandments on courts, "God" referenced everywhere) it should be obvious that there IS NOT a RIGID separation of church and state.

You are once again being dishonest in purposefully confusing freedom of religion and separation of religion.

Ron Paul FULLY supports freedom of religion, and your attempts to smear him on this issue are downright dirty.

 

Do a bit more research on what these mean.

The Constitution guarantees religious freedom. Separation of religion means that the laws of the land are not governed by religious belief. Laws like teaching creationism over natural selection, overturning Roe V Wade because abortion is against God's plan, imposing Shariah law etc. Ron Paul wants the States to be able to rule their population on religious grounds if they so choose. Seems pretty clear cut to me, but please, find me the speech where he affirms that religious belief should have no part in framing laws or overturning them.

Ron Paul is a hero to some. I just see another politician with a few good ideas who, like all professional politicians swimming in the cesspool of Congress, would say anything that kept those supporters sending in money.

Yes We Can. Change Now.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExwqY7Wiiig[/youtube]

 

Julie, of course you are entitled to your opinions; but you presented your opinions like they were fact; When you discovered that your original assertions were false, you scrambled to dig yourself out of the hole.
Best to just stop digging and put this one down to a good learning experience.

 

Julie, your veracious ignorance is astounding.

In 1997, Ron Paul wrote legislation (H. J. RES. 78) which contained the text:

In addition, Ron Paul wrote this in his recent book, 'Liberty Defined':

Does this sound like a man who wants ANYONE to impose their way of life on to anyone else?

To make your argument even more absurd, are you aware that every single state of the United States has provisions in their constitutions prohibiting the establishment of religion?

"Ron Paul wants the States to be able to rule their population on religious grounds if they so choose."

Ron Paul believes in more local governance, and what you have said above is another round of intellectual dishonesty.

Just because Ron Paul believes that some entities can legally legislate something, doesn't mean he should, or that he agrees with it.

You are simply engaging in demagoguery when you say Paul "WANTS" them to be able to rule on ANY grounds.

Next thing you will say that Paul wants drug dealers to get babies addicted to crack because he opposes drug laws.

As browski says, you are entitled to an opinion, but it doesn't mean it has any relevance in reality.