Farewell Ron Paul

Quote from bjklt96:

Mr. Paul if only you were good looking and outgoing enough to win over the media maybe you could have made something happen. I didn't agree with everything he wanted to do but his candor and common sense will be missed.

+2
More...

-1.

Says he supports free trade yet supports tariffs that help out Houston area seafood sellers.

Says he supports individual liberties yet supports limiting abortion rights.

Says he was against government pork but brought back his share of the bacon back to his district.

Says he was different but in the end was the same as everyone else.

Good riddance.
 
I posted this same speech earlier in "politics and religion". There were not many comments, so thank you for posting it here, where it seems to have gotten more of the attention it deserves.. It is one of the more important speeches we will hear coming from the House.

We should, regardless of political persuasion, all be thankful for Mr. Paul, and his contributions to sanity in an often insane world. I supported him, but I wouldn't want him to be President unless we could somehow change our nature. He was a naive and refreshing voice of sanity. He did not fully grasp economics in a world of fiat currencies, or reality. He was a very wise voice shouting into a black hole. Thank you Ron Paul for everything you tried to do. You will be missed. We need more like you.
 
Quote from Covertibility:

Good bye big govt spender running on the less govt meme,

Ron Pual on Meet the Press

MR. RUSSERT: When I looked at your record, you talked about big government and how opposed you are to it, but you seem to have a different attitude about your own congressional district. For example, "Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted. `Is bailing out people" that choose--"that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?' he asks." And you said no. And yet, this: "Paul's current district, which includes Galveston and reaches into" the "Brazoria County, draws a substantial amount of federal flood insurance payments." For your own congressional district. This is the Houston Chronicle: "Representative Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government. But he also" "represented a congressional district that's consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government's" fiscal "2006 fiscal year," "it received more than $4 billion." And they report, The Wall Street Journal, 65 earmark-targeted projects, $400 million that you have put into congressional bills for your district, which leads us to the Congressional Quarterly. "The Earmark Dossier of `Dr. No.' There isn't much that" Ron--Dr. "Ron Paul thinks the federal government should do. Apparently, though, earmarks" for his district "are OK. Paul is the sponsor of no fewer than 10 earmarks in the water resources bill," all benefiting his district. The Gulf Intercoastal Waterway: $32 million. The sunken ship you want to be moved from Freeport Harbor. The Bayou Navigation Channel. They talk about $8 million for shrimp fishermen.
More...


If you can't beat them join them! A representatives job is to fight for his or her district and give them a voice. Just because one's actions don't always match their ideals doesn't mean they are two faced they are just playing the game they are paid to play.
 
To convertibility and smilingsynic I would say it is good to question the positions he took and the apparent inconsistencies between rhetoric and actions. His positions were often not those you could accurately summarize in a sound bite. Some of them seemed nutty to me, but then when he was allowed the opportunity to go into detail they seemed a little less so. For example, on abortion, regardless of his personal view, he was firm in believing this is a local issue, and not one the federal government should get involved in. He would have accepted Texas allowing abortions, but Idaho not. I thought that was a bit nutty, but consistent with his view of States rights. He thought you shouldn't go to war unless the Congress declared war. He really wanted to limit Federal power to exactly those powers spelled out in the Constitution. He wasn't one for lose construction. He never acknowledged, so far as I am aware, that the Constitution could very well be obsolescent in rather serious ways.

Like all politicians, the media did their best to define him as they wished, but to a greater extent then other politicians, he could not be easily defined in a few words. There were often subtleties and nuances involved. I suppose that's why he could never succeed at national politics. His positions required too much intellect, to much attention to fine points. The kind of positions that can't make sense in a 30 sec Ad, even on the occasions when they actually are sensible.
 
Quote from riskaddict:

If you can't beat them join them! A representatives job is to fight for his or her district and give them a voice. Just because one's actions don't always match their ideals doesn't mean they are two faced they are just playing the game they are paid to play.
More...

It is a fact that he has had no problem bringing home government pork--millions toward domestic shrimp marketing, so local businesses can get a leg up on their foreign competitors.

This so-called free market-supporting congressman hypocritically walks around with the Constitution in his pocket, condemning reckless spending that goes against the Constitution, while accepting earmarks.

And yet the sheeple are impressed, as if this was a man of courage and principle, not an opportunist counting on the failure of people to fact check.

As if shrimp marketing was in the Constitution, or even the Federalist Papers. Wonder if he ever talked about that in his, um, newsletters, lol.

Ron Paul's adherence to his so-called principles was about as weak as Larry King's urine stream. Talk is cheap, and Paul made a career at talking plenty of bullshit.

As I said, good riddance.
 
what I never could understand is, his main critics were republicans who didn't like his foreign policy.

democrats didn't like him because he was a republican, no mystery there

independents liked him and also if he wasn't a republican, most democrats liked him and often quoted him to attack the republican party.

so what was it about his foreign policy that republicans, who agreed with him on eveything else found so offensive?
 
Quote from oldtime:

what I never could understand is, his main critics were republicans who didn't like his foreign policy.

democrats didn't like him because he was a republican, no mystery there

independents liked him and also if he wasn't a republican, most democrats liked him and often quoted him to attack the republican party.

so what was it about his foreign policy that republicans, who agreed with him on eveything else found so offensive?
More...

Perhaps it was his belief that the Defense Department should not be a branch of Dept. of Commerce, Wall Street, the Chamber of Commerce and the better Business Bureau.
 
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1673&Itemid=69



To the poster that is bashing Mr. Paul...

Please read the above article, and then for one moment consider the following.

Ron Paul worked within an imperfect framework to further an agenda of right from wrong.

He is a hero to our American ideals and had the courage to speak out against the psychopathic mentality of our governmental bureaucracies.

Our country is bankrupt, we keep spending money we do not have, and our country ( and the mindset of of the sheeple ) seems to think that it is OK to bash someone that has tirelessly fought for fiscal responsibility, and adherence to the Constitution.


Right or Left....democrat or republican, all are truly all from the same cloth. In front of the camera, they bash each other with their talking points. Behind the camera, they wine and dine, and cut deals that undermine the good of the people.

Mr. Paul never did that. His record is unblemished in that regard.

If his record was blemished, you can bet that the bought and paid for mainstream media would have brought all their firepower to discredit him.
They didn't because they couldn't. Oh they tried to discredit him with their every breath, but NEVER about his voting record.


Do you have or want children? Do you feel that our government is conducting themselves in a manner that is consistent with your ideals about what you want for their futures?


I pray that you, and any others who have been duped by our media into thinking that our country is going down the correct path to please educate yourself, read some history books, and look in the mirror.


Above all, please stop watching the mainstream media. The agenda is so blatantly biased, that I do not know how any credible educated person can watch it without coming away nauseated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top