Ron Paul on This Week with G-Steph

Rude but Honest, Blunt but Hilarious

Stephanopoulos: What’s success for you in this campaign?
Paul: What’s success? Well, to win, is one, is the goal.
Stephanopoulos: That’s not going to happen.
Paul: Do you know for absolute? Are you willing to bet every cent in your pocket for that?
Stephanopoulos: Yes.
Paul: You are. OK.

I’m quite happy to see anyone be rude to Ron Paul, since he’s a fantabulous libertarian…until it comes to teh gayz and teh bitchez. Yawn.

Advertisements

119 Comments

Filed under 01_shakespeares_sister

119 responses to “Ron Paul on This Week with G-Steph

  1. NameChanged

    Wow, talk about an honest interview. “You will not win, and your libertarianism is as fake as your confidence in winning.”

  2. I don’t know, Liss. Paul does have the Drunken-Idaho-White-Supremacist-Government-Hater vote wrapped up. Wrapped up, I tell you.

    –WKW

  3. That is definitely funny.

  4. Crazy. Old. Coot.

  5. Allie

    What I find scary is how many people have somehow fallen for him – because this time around, he’s the “truth tellin'” republican.

  6. Greg Palmer

    What I find scary is that one person, above, is using different handles to create the illusion of a multi-person conversation. Are you schizophrenic, or is this your best attempt to impress the DC-based thinktank that hired you?

  7. Aaron

    I’m not happy to see anyone be rude to another person. Who raised you?!
    How did your parents allow you to act this way? Kids these days…need to be more respectful.

  8. Pingback: University Update - Ron Paul - Ron Paul on This Week with G-Steph

  9. What I find scary is that one person, above, is using different handles to create the illusion of a multi-person conversation. Are you schizophrenic, or is this your best attempt to impress the DC-based thinktank that hired you?

    What the hell are you talking about?

  10. Kids these days…need to be more respectful.

    😆 – I’m not a kid.

    Although I did just get carded for alcohol recently (!!!), which was awesome. (And Kate can confirm that!)

  11. “What the hell are you talking about?”
    I’m not sure if you were responding to Greg Palmer or Aaron, but I second the WTH either way.

  12. Aaron

    Sorry, you come across as a kid. I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, but why would ever want someone to rude to someone else? Isn’t that childish?

  13. I support Dr. Paul and think Stephie was being a smug asshole. What’s another good choice? Gravel doesn’t have enough support and other than him or Paul we’ll end up with another bought-out warmonger. Is that what you people want?

  14. why would ever want someone to rude to someone else?

    I didn’t say I wanted G-Steph to be rude to Ron Paul. I said I didn’t care that he was, because Ron Paul’s politics are heinous.

    Isn’t that childish?

    Yes, you’re right. I should be more mature like Ron Paul and just try to legislate his rights out of existence, instead of being a little snarky when someone’s rude to him. Jebus.

  15. Melissa McEwan wrote ‘ I didn’t say I wanted G-Steph to be rude to Ron Paul. I said I didn’t care that he was, because Ron Paul’s politics are heinous.”
    Please explain what’s heinous about the constitution and what you consider a good alternative.

  16. Pingback: If anyone is interested, this blog needs pummeling - Ron Paul Forums

  17. Please explain what’s heinous about the constitution and what you consider a good alternative.

    LOL! Go jerk off somewhere else. I’m not interested.

  18. Yeah, I too wonder what’s so “heinous” about his politics. And I’d be very interested to see who you elevate against him as being non-heinous.

  19. CAlex

    Why exactly do you think Ron Paul’s politics are henious?

  20. Aaron

    “I’m quite happy to see anyone be rude to Ron Paul…” I’m going on your statement, that’s it. Please don’t try to twist my words around. I don’t care how you respond personally, but if you are writing to others, you should be more responsible. I just got through reading some of your other articles, and it seems you are for people’s rights, but above you made a pretty insensitive statement. Quite confusing. I don’t know Ron Paul very well, so I’m ignorant to your last statement. I don’t know how Ron Paul’s actions have anything to do with your actions anyway. Sort of passing the buck aren’t you?

  21. If you don’t like Ron Paul, go ahead and elect a Socialist/Communist or a Neo-Con/Fascist and watch the Constitution of this Free Republic get tossed aside. Then, when our freedoms have been rused away from us through weakening and dividing us over issues like gay rights, and many more, then the mask will come off. Then, all the radicalized groups that thought they were getting their special privilages will soon discover that what they get is the loss of their own individual freedoms because they were willing to trample on the freedoms of others for their own selfish interest.

    Ron Paul stands for what this country was started with and what has made it reach the pinacle of greatness that it did. Freedom! The kind that is not divorced from respect for others. Unfortunately, our nation is in rapid decline and unless we get some strong medicine from the Dr. we are terminal.

  22. Wow–you guys follow orders really well:

    If anyone is interested, this blog needs pummeling – Ron Paul Forums
    Pingback on Jul 9th, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    I’m tres impressed! Mindless brownshirts get my nipples hard.

  23. Samantha

    I’m an older voter and I found G-Steph completely unprofessional.

    But after reading this blog – it stinks that people with Melissa McEwens intellectual capacity has the same say in elections as the rest of us.

    I’m not convinced that Dr. Paul’s foreign policy is correct. 4 years ago I would of considered it insane, but it is making more and more sense as the months pass by.

    But to claim he would legislate rights away from us is ridiculous.

    Unless people think they have a right to not pay for stuff and get it anyway, you won’t be losing a single right with Dr. Paul.

  24. DisabledVet

    I for one Hate Ron Paul…I think Liberty, and freedom…less government is all crap. Were under attack by the terrorists and we need to give up our liberties and freedom all to the government so that they can protect us.

    If you want some good anti Ron Paul info go to http://www.IHateRonPaul.com

  25. John Reading

    Maliscious Melissa spewing hate. Must be a socialist hungry to rob the rich and get lots of free stuff from the government extortion racket. It’s “heinous” to deprive parasites – like this dumb little intellectual puke – of the government loot they love and so Maliscious Mellissa, like all of them, is naturally turning to sadistic insults and hysterical dishonesty to bring down anyone like Paul who would defend your right to be free of this cowardly little creep who finds liberty and property to be heinous, but won’t explain ’cause she ain’t interested. And by the way, who on earth would want to jerk-off after reading this creepy little pervert?

    Nothing personal, you understand.

  26. Alright you all should at least watch the entire interview.

  27. Eve

    Melissa “get my nipples hard” McEwan = Attention Whore

  28. Honestly, I think my mind is changing in regard to Ron Paul. I mean, the obvious stupidity of his base is off the charts. And you all know what happened the last we had a candidate whose followers were dumb as stones …. bwah bwah

    And hey, Stormfront has already said he’s their man.

    –WKW

  29. Nobody said the Ron Paul machine was ignorant of the power of the internets! Do they really think they’re changing minds? I know I have better things to do than “pummel” one of their blogs. Oh well. Doesn’t matter. Think I’ll mosey over to the tip jar and drop a little something in. You know, for the “anti-pummeling” defenses.

  30. Aaron

    One thing I’ve learned in life: When someone doesn’t have any answers they either call names or they get physical. You are calling names now Ms. McEwan. Been a pleasure, and by the way, I like your vocabulary. One would think you had answers with that vocabulary..

  31. Tyler Munden

    Hi,

    I found this page by searching “Ron Paul” on google.com

    I’m trying to educate myself about the candidates in 2008. So far the only criticism of Ron Paul I’ve heard is ‘he can’t win.’

    Are there any other criticisms?

  32. oddjob

    Liss, there are some seriously rabid legionnaires out there when it comes to Ron Paul. They don’t show up very well in “conventional” polling because they skew younger and are more frequently land line-free when it comes to their telephones.

    Sully’s blogged about this phenom. a little bit and that’s where I learned about it.

    I think a lot of these folks have probably never really considered what a doctrinnaire libertarian is and how untenable libertarianism’s goals are to the vast majority of Americans. If they want a truly libertarian society they should look to a place like Haiti.

    No thanks.

  33. One would think you had answers with that vocabulary.

    Answers, Melissa. We demand ANSWERS!!! (One a little better than RP’s “hey, let’s just abandon government” answer, mind you)

    Liss, there are some seriously rabid legionnaires out there when it comes to Ron Paul.

    And wow, do they all have rip-roaring senses of humor. You’d think spending hours trapping and cutting up logs for heat would help you become a little less serious, but evidently not. 😉

    –WKW

  34. Maliscious Melissa spewing hate.

    At least I can spell.

  35. G

    Paul is a constitutionalist first, and libertarian because the constitution and declaration of independence are classically liberal (very similar to, or the same as, libertarianism) documents. For a long time, the United States was the most libertarian (though not entirely, due to the lack of black and women’s rights) country in the world. Now days Hong Kong is probably the most libertarian, although thats just a guess on my part.

    Haiti is not libertarian in any sense at all.

  36. oddjob

    Tyler, by and large Ron Paul is a libertarian, and has alrady run for president as the nominee of the Libertarian Party (in ’88, I think). I think libertarianism is a utopian philosophy, and like nearly all other utopian philosophies, is well meant, but refuses to consider what manner of society would result if the philosophy’s predicted outcomes did not occur.

    Since utopian predictions essentially never come true, that means the philosophy most likely has structural flaws that won’t be addressed by its supporters. The supporters embrace a view of humanity at variance with the reality, and like all strongly held beliefs, won’t let it go because it would require a major rethinking of their lives generally.

    The usual response to my counter-assertion is to suggest I can’t know this because there has never been a libertarian society.

    I suggested the outcome would be akin to Haiti’s because if you want a society in which the government does almost nothing then sooner or later you will end up with a plutocracy, where the powerful/wealthy run all and those who aren’t part of that tiny plutocratic minority are instead its servants.

    I don’t want to live in such a society.

  37. Aaron

    If you read my posts William, you’d know that your comment is a little off. I’m not “demanding” anything. What is up with all of these Ron Paul references? Are you the backup? lol Just questioning the comment above on being happy to see someone rude to Ron Paul. I don’t know Ron Paul. I don’t support Ron Paul. So these remarks about Ron Paul is beyond me. Now she’s calling people brownshirts. Hey, I apologize, I thought this was a respectable place to get information about candidates. I’m just trying to get a better idea about those who are running for President. I didn’t know that this site was so loose in it’s views. So, I am backing out before more names are thrown my way. Have a good day.

  38. G

    Libertarianism is not at all utopian. Indeed, its based on the idea that people in power cannot be trusted, and plans for it. The most libertarian government which existed to my knowledge was the United States constitution. It was designed to place expressed limits on the powers of the federal government, and put checks in place to prevent the government from growing to the point where it could infringe on the rights of the people and the states. It was really designed as a cage to keep the ambitious and power-hungry in check. The constitution isn’t really used for that purpose anymore, but the idea is still there for those who bother to read it.

    While the constitution does limit the role and scope of federal government, it is not to “almost nothing”, and all powers not granted to the federal government were reserved for the states, smaller local governments, or the people.

  39. I’m just trying to get a better idea about those who are running for President.

    Honestly, this comment thread pretty much perfectly encapsulates the Ron Paul campaign and Ron Paul the campaigner.

    –WKW

  40. oddjob

    Yes G, and your version of America resulted in the Gilded Age.

    No thanks.

  41. dabruster

    Sound’s like somebody doesn’t like Ron Paul because they would prefer the government to require everybody to be a feminist homosexual.

  42. where the powerful/wealthy run all and those who aren’t part of that tiny plutocratic minority are instead its servants.

    I don’t want to live in such a society.

    oddjob, isn’t that basically what we have right here in ‘Murrika?

  43. G

    The Gilded Age was the most rapid expansion of the economy of the United States in history, ushered in huge increases in the standard of living and wealth of all classes, and was the start (and maybe the height?) of American philanthropy. It also resulted in tons of immigration, and therefore an increase in cultural diversity. Not to say it didn’t have its problems, I think there was significant corruption and of course poor civil rights for blacks and women.

    The age that followed of course offered similar improvements as technology progressed. But it also resulted in the worst economic collapse in the history of the industrialized world, the Great Depression, thanks to the flawed monetary policies of the newly-established Federal Reserve.

  44. Why won’t you elaborate on what parts of Ron Paul’s positions are ‘heinous’?

    I thought his answer during the debates regarding gays in the military was quite good. We do not receive our natural rights because we belong to a group, minority or otherwise. We derive our rights not from government but from our creator – however you define that.

    I am bringing that up because of your statements above. I assume you have an objection because you don’t think he supports gay rights – however you happen to define them.

  45. oddjob

    oddjob, isn’t that basically what we have right here in ‘Murrika?

    Not to the extent it’s so in Haiti!

  46. oddjob

    Sound’s like somebody doesn’t like Ron Paul because they would prefer the government to require everybody to be a feminist homosexual.

    LOL! Sounds like someone gets their nose put out of joint by the temerity of a feminist or a homosexual to raise a criticism.

  47. G

    Rick, many people want the federal government to make a ruling allowing gay marriage. Any libertarian would of course not want the government to restrict someone’s rights to marry whomever they want, but Paul is a constitutionalist. Since it is not legal for the federal government to rule on marriage of any sort at all, I’d imagine people in favor of gay marriage might not vote for Dr. Paul.

    Haiti is about as libertarian as George Dubya Bush is.

  48. CFRGuy

    Freedom is highly over rated. We live in a interdependent world and we need solutions that are best for the collective.

  49. I saw the interview, and thought that Stephanopolis actually was quite pleasant toward Ron Paul when it came down to discussing ideas.

    If he disagrees on electability, well, that may say more about the depravity of the mainstream Republican Party than it says about Ron Paul or George Stephanopolis.

  50. Buckwheat

    Melissa, what policies of Paul’s do you find so unacceptable?

  51. oddjob

    Haiti is what you get at the end of the libertarian model. If you have nothing in place to prevent the powerful from gaming the system it’s the inevitable result. The Gilded Age was cut off because our system is more resilient to being gamed (although it still can be). It was cut short by the less powerful, but I still wonder what would have happened had McKinley not been assassinated. Roosevelt made room for progressive ideas.

    Progressivism arose in direct response to the unbridled economic expansionism you apparently yearn for, G. That wasn’t an accident.

  52. Sounds like someone gets their nose put out of joint by the temerity of a feminist or a homosexual to raise a criticism.

    And also someone who doesn’t realize they’re at the Official Blog of Teh Feminazi Cooter.

  53. dexxel

    Don’t post here, don’t give this stupid skank any hits, let her stupid assed socialistic fantasy run her ignorant life until about 2015 when the baby boomers retire. Then she can sit back and watch our deficit skyrocket to 60 trillion dollars. Effectivly bankrupting every single stupid asshole that couldn’t drive a car if the government didn’t show them how. I am a hateful person these days. All because People like this blogger will believe anything a college professor crams down thier ignorant throat.

    Gay marrige, what a fucking joke. Who gives a shit. Marriage is a religious rite, it’s shouldn’t even be involved in government. There doesn’t need to be a ruling becuase there doesn’t need to be any oversight of marraige.

    Universal Healthcare, get a fucking clue. It’s over, stick a fork in it, which might not be a bad idea considering the person I am addressing. 65% of all healthcare is already paid for by the government. Thats practically Socialized already, Yet 95% of all the profits from the healthcare and health insurance agencies go straight into the pockets of Corporate CEO’s. Thats how fucked up we are, we have socialized medicine with fascist profiteering. You want more of that? Fine, vote for Obama, Vote for hillary, I don’t give a shit, you reap what you sow. All you’ll be doing is the same stupid ass shit your parents did, which is increase the size of the coffers of the corporations you hate so much. Useful Idiot, thats what you are.

    Entitlements, You don’t deserve shit just becuase you were born. No one does. If people didn’t have to pay 54% of thier income through a variety of taxes, then we just might have a shot at taking care of ourselves. Keep touting how important it is, it won’t change the fact that the baby boomer generation will be the last generation on earth to recieve social security. How did I figure that out? I can add. Not to mention the fact that anyone can immigrate at age 65 and pull Social Security, even though they never paid one cent into it thier entire lives. Speaking of which…

    Immagration, it is impossible that people are this stupid. You know what? I’m not even going to get into it, Just buckle down and get ready for the whirlwind. Bring them all in, 20 million? No problem, 50? Why the hell not. It would only bankrupt the welfare system, why? Becuase people from 3rd world nations don’t have college degrees dumbass. What the fuck are they going to do? Pick Lettuce? Oh hey that a great idea! Send the slaves out and pay them below minimum wage under the table! That way we can avoid a huge tax overhead! Not to mention the joy of having to build more bankrupt schools, more water treatment plants full of mercury, more hospitals paid for with a bankrupt social program, more sewage plants to dump shit in our rivers. Man you guys are really on it! 4.2 billion people in 3rd world countries, screw it, import them all, we can handle it. The fact that 4.2 billion people in the third world have 80 million babies a year won’t hurt our infrastructure at all. Braindead, get a clue.

    We have got slash everything, start completely over. We are a healthy, educated and free society, we don’t need this shit, it’s sucking the fucking life out of us. I’ll assume that a person like you only preaches to the choir, becuase they are the only people stupid enough to buy into this bullshit. But no one, not one single soclistic democrat from the deepest level of hell will ever tell you the truth about where the money goes, how it gets there, or where it comes from. If half of you indocrinated sheeple had any clue that the party of the “little guy” Has caused more wars, more enviornmental disaters, and handed the corporations a blank check to do whatever the fuck they feel like, you might have a sense of wisdom about you. But you don’t, you never will, becuase the only media outlets you listen to are stupid skank like this blogger, Air America, and the New York Times. Read a fucking book once in a while. So do whatever the hell you want, suck off the government nipple all your life, I am fully aware that a person like you could never make it anywhere under your own steam.

    I work 2 jobs and moonlight with my own business, I bust my ass every day to take care of me and mine. I don’t want a welfare state, I don’t need a fucking welfare state, and neither do you.

  54. Paul the Spud

    I love how “pummeling” somehow translated into “wankeriffically troll.”

    Sound’s like somebody doesn’t like Ron Paul because they would prefer the government to require everybody to be a feminist homosexual.

    Can we put this in Wikipedia under “typical wingnut troll response?” Seriously, that one’s so old, it farts dust.

  55. Buckwheat

    Here’s a California couple who, in lieu of wedding gifts, want donations made to Ron Paul’s campaign:

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/307207/california_couple_asks_wedding_guests.html

  56. “Haiti is what you get at the end of the libertarian model.”

    Not it isn’t. Haiti is an authoritarian dictatorship, the antithesis of libertarianism.

    To answer somebody else who assumes that objections to RP’s position on gay marriage is what causes this particular blogger to reject him.

    Ron Paul’s position on gay marriage shouldn’t offend any homosexual. For one, he voted against the amendment proposal that marriage be federally defined as between only a man and woman. His stance is that it isn’t a federal affair. And furthermore, the marriage license *itself* is anti-libertarian even at the state level. If Marriage is indeed a religious ceremony then the government has no business requiring that you get permission to engage in it.

    At any rate, Ron Paul wouldn’t sign any bill defining marriage. He voted against said bill when it came up due to its unconstitutional nature.

  57. don’t give this stupid skank any hits

    Classy!

    Immagration, it is impossible that people are this stupid.

    When people can’t even spell immigration correctly while calling me stupid, the jokes write themselves.

  58. dexxel

    Wow, Thats all you got? Calling the grammer police is the best you can do? Check your mailbox, your welfare check is probably there by now. Just don’t sub your toe on the way out there, I’d hate to have to pay for your stupidity once again.

  59. Wow, Thats all you got?

    No, honey. That’s just all I’ll give you.

    Run along now.

  60. I hope dexxel, that you do not think you are helping Ron Paul. You aren’t. Maybe nobody is here since Melissa doesn’t want to tell us why she thinks Ron Paul’s politics are abhorrent. But coming here and calling her names is just unbecoming. Take a lesson from Ron Paul himself.

  61. Paul the Spud

    Wow, Thats all you got? Calling the grammer police is the best you can do? Check your mailbox, your welfare check is probably there by now. Just don’t sub your toe on the way out there, I’d hate to have to pay for your stupidity once again.

    And, apparently, that’s the best you can do.

    Seriously, what motivates people to troll? Can one’s life be that shallow and meaningless that pleasure can be derived from going on a website and spouting obnoxious trash? There’s thousands of blogs out there that spout viewpoints that are completely opposite to mine, but I’ve never felt the need to hop in their comments threads and be a complete ass.

    Pick up a hobby. Trust me, you’ll enjoy life more if your spare time activities are more productive.

  62. dexxel

    Fine be that way, I’ll be back to pick up the bones later.

  63. Here are Ron Paul’s positions that are apparently, so heinous:

    1) Following the Constitution
    2) Human liberty
    3) Sound money
    4) No more income tax
    5) Small-limited government (See No. 1 above)
    6) Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy
    7) Sound immigration policy

    So, what’s so bad about these positions? What do you propose are better positions?

  64. Melissa doesn’t want to tell us why she thinks Ron Paul’s politics are abhorrent

    To be frank, I just refuse to blog on demand to people who come through to read one post, which I don’t think is an unreasonable position–especially when most of them are coming via a link telling them to “pummel” me. I’ve previously written about what I don’t like about Ron Paul, and it’s there to be found if you care to find it.

  65. Paul the Spud

    Fine be that way, I’ll be back to pick up the bones later.

    LOL!

    “I’m taking my ball and going home! Wah!”

  66. I didn’t come here to pummel you. I’ll go look.

    Here’s a gay man who says Ron Paul has his vote.

  67. oddjob

    I work 2 jobs and moonlight with my own business, I bust my ass every day to take care of me and mine. I don’t want a welfare state, I don’t need a fucking welfare state, and neither do you.

    You ought to read What’s The Matter With Kansas? You might learn something. Ayn Rand sure isn’t going to help you any.

    Obviously you want us all to be serfs like you, all aspiring to be winners and all failing.

  68. oddjob

    You guys are doing a bang-up job of proving my contention that libertarians are utopians who have no idea what they’d do if their predictions of nirvana didn’t pan out.

    Thanks!

  69. OK So I read some of your posts. Looks like you agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy (at least when it comes to 911). He’s actually the only adult in the GOP on the issue.

    But I still don’t understand the aversion.

    “Obviously you want us all to be serfs like you, all aspiring to be winners and all failing.”

    The welfare/warfare state is what causes serfs. Take away the welfare/warfare state and people can actually afford to live on one income. It can’t be done overnight. There are people who currently depend on the state to survive. It would be cruel to just cut them off.

    However, we also have a real problem with the inflation tax and sound money which creates poverty due to he currency’s constantly declining value. If this isn’t addressed, then the rich will continue to get richer while the poor keep on getting poorer. No amount of welfare can change that if the monetary situation isn’t remedied.

  70. NonyNony

    The welfare/warfare state is what causes serfs.

    Oh for the loved of God.

    This is the dumbest line I’ve ever read. Even when I called myself a libertarian I still KNEW that serfdom was caused by rich elites who have the money and slave laborers who have to work for the money. If this wasn’t the case then 9th century Europe would have been a fucking paradise of freedom and liberty for everyone. The “welfare state” doesn’t cause everyone to have to work two jobs to survive – you can look at “globalization” and “free open markets” to thank for you having to work two jobs nowadays.

    Wake up – read some history – understand the world around you and how you got here. Some aspects of libertarianism are great ideals to strive for, but economic libertarianism isn’t one of them.

    And Ron Paul’s a phony libertarian anyway – he only really supports liberty for white males and has some damn stupid things to say about gays and ‘foreigners’ – if your libertarian policies don’t extend to everyone you’re a phony libertarian.

    (Trolls like this are the guys who finally woke me up to what big-L Libertarianism was really like and why it was an untenable political movement – attending a Libertarian Party meeting is pretty much like reading libertarian trolls off the Internet — scattered bits of idiocy mingled with hostility, and everyone thinks their version of libertarianism is the “right” one and everyone else is a moron. Republicans tend to be more friendly and open to ideas than Libertarians.)

  71. Kate Harding

    Oh my God, this thread is a hoot. I love that these people think they’re helping Paul’s case. Way to pummel, y’all!

  72. Paul

    Honestly all the RP people should stop posting on this site. Most are far left leaning democrats and in no way will be convinced of their already cemented views on any man/woman/child proclaimed to be a Republican.

    Which is really sad as he’s the only one I personally find to be a great candidate on the Repub side. While I don’t agree fully with all of RP views (I’m Canadian and find socialized medicine to be working fine (not great but fine)), he appeals to me due to the fact of his consistency in his views and the honesty that he portrays when talking about them.

    If you think I’m a conservative, let me tell you that I lean more towards the left in my politics, but I like to try to be as neutral as I can, listening to both sides and finding the best of each one. The reason why I follow US politics is because the US affects the world and their choice of president is important in terms of policy made.

    I just hope Ron Paul wins on the Repub side since he’s the only one to actively pursue a foreign policy that will help the world, not just America.

  73. “This is the dumbest line I’ve ever read. Even when I called myself a libertarian I still KNEW that serfdom was caused by rich elites who have the money and slave laborers who have to work for the money.”

    It’s not the money that they had. It was the property. Since they controlled the property, the rest were serfs.

    Today, the elites control the money and have done so since 1913 when they created the federal reserve system.

    This opened the door to federal deficits since they could now borrow money to finance welfare programs which they then demanded that the citizenry pay back. That has created a slave population responsible for paying for war and entitlement programs. All the while, the Fed continues to print currency and increase the money supply, the actual definition of inflation (not “higher prices” which is a symptom of inflation, not inflation itself).

  74. Sophistry, non sequiturs, doublespeak, and ad hominem attacks are what pass for ‘discourse’ for the party faithful in this ‘progressive’ haven of idiocy. It’s no wonder you got shit-canned from Edwards’ staff, sweet-cheeks.

    Nothing but disinfo agents at this so-called ‘blog’…

  75. Paul

    Oh btw, my choice on the Democrat side of things would have been Wesley Clark. I really wish he would run and more people would take the time to learn about him.

  76. mullahomar

    I for one want to THANK dexxel for his thoughtful post. I agree with him fully. If Melissa doesnt like what people have to say to her then she should close her blog. This is not your home. It’s a venue for people to write what they wish. Don’t like it? Then stick to writing emails to your friends who will always agree with you.

    btw, here is one for you.

    Melissa needs to tuck her cock back between her legs and keep pretending to be the all knowing dyke that she is. How do you like them apples?

    and a preemptive “Fuck you” to anyone who wants to tell me that I can’t post such things on a blog.

  77. G

    oddjob,

    The entire point of the constitution, the Rule of Law, and libertarianism, is to prevent the gaming of the system. The constitution places strict limits on federal power. Its a shame it was never enforced (like other laws, where people actually go to jail if they are broken), since it easily could have worked for a lot longer than it did. I’m just glad people still use it to defend civil liberties.

    In a free market, the powerful cannot “game” the system by lobbying congress for special privileges or taxpayer money. Under a pure democracy, which is close to what we have now, they can and they will. There is a reason big business and big labor interests are more prevalent today in Washington, and thats because the scope of government has grown. As its scope grows, the number of things the powerful can do with government grows as well. And so their desire, and in some cases necessity, to influence politics grows as well. Most “reforms” the politicians pass are pushed by people with power for their own gain. The original minimum wage laws, for example, were not designed to help out poor workers, but to protect higher-wage union workers from competition (interestingly, in some other countries, like South Africa, they didn’t even bother with the pretense of helping poor people when they passed minimum wage legislation).

    In nearly every case I think of, free markets have increased the prosperity of all classes of society immensely. Even the abuses of the industrial revolution (which certainly weren’t entirely free markets) placed the poor factory worker in far better conditions than he had been on the farm. Hong Kong went from a rock with no natural resources to an economic miracle, and the United States was transformed into an economic superpower. Neither of those places became Haiti. Haiti was never even close to libertarian to begin with. You might say Chile was, with Pinochet’s “reforms”, but using a brutal dictator isn’t exactly the libertarian way.

    NonyNony,

    9th century Europe was Feudal, with the aristocracy owning everything. I think thats more or less the opposite of classical liberalism. If you read Locke and Jefferson, you’ll notice how they stress individuals possess rights. Prior to that, it was assumed the monarch literally owned everyone by divine fiat, and granted everyone their own rights.

    The welfare/warfare state is very real. Just look at the amount of corporate welfare given out by the government, and how much is wasted in Iraq. All that money comes from US taxpayers. Even a lot of welfare for poorer people ends up in the hands of the wealthy (such as lucrative government housing projects). No one spends someone else’s money carefully, not even the most sincere-looking politician. And I doubt that is really ever going to change; its been a problem of representative governments since ancient Rome.

    I am arguing for Dr. Paul because only he, Mike Gravel, and the Government Accountability Office (http://www.gao.gov/) seem to care about America’s utterly astounding entitlement debts which will hit us in a few decades. All the other candidates just talk about more spending. I suppose a lot of people won’t be alive then, and so might not care, but some of us will. Jefferson was right when he wrote about the immorality of imposing debts and poor legislation on the next generation 😦

  78. Oh my God, this thread is a hoot. I love that these people think they’re helping Paul’s case. Way to pummel, y’all!

    There are a couple of things you can always count on with Paul supporters. First, they will never realize just how contradictory they are in their positions, which is indicative, apparently of Paul himself, and second, they will never hesitate to call anyone who points out Paul’s many flaws a tool of the “two parties which are just alike.”

  79. Paul

    Sorry about the spam, but if people want these messages to become an open and honest debate, you guys should respond to the posts by G and Risk Fisk. Just because they’re the ones that have been responding in an intelligent and respectful way and IMO deserve a respective and intelligent response back.

    Hoping that will at least bridge some gaps or promote some sort of respect on both sides of the argument.

  80. There are a couple of things you can always count on with Paul supporters. First, they will never realize just how contradictory they are in their positions, which is indicative, apparently of Paul himself, and second, they will never hesitate to call anyone who points out Paul’s many flaws a tool of the “two parties which are just alike.”

    There are a couple of things you can always count on from so-called progressives. First, they will never realize just how contradictory it is to do things like make us pay more taxes so the government can pay for the healthcare we can’t afford because we pay too much in taxes. Second, they’ll never hesitate to vacillate and avoid making a single cogent argument when someone asks them to explain exactly why someone like Congressman Ron Paul, MD is wrong on the issues.

  81. Why do Libertarians make such nasty trolls?

    Seriously, they spit fire when someone exercises their right to free speech and exposes then for the heartless, selfish bastards that they are.

    I hope they get their wish and end up old, alone, and living in disease, filth, and poverty. I really do.

  82. Paul

    Frizt
    “I hope they get their wish and end up old, alone, and living in disease, filth, and poverty. I really do.”

    How does that make you better than those Libertarian “trolls”? Personally, no matter who I disagreed with I wouldn’t wish that on another.

    Also, keep in mind that this is the Internet, known for bringing out extreme personalities. To keep focusing on the responses by people like dexxel and to avoid the responses made by G and Risk Fisk is to encourage the worst about the Internet.

  83. “Why do Libertarians make such nasty trolls?

    Seriously, they spit fire when someone exercises their right to free speech and exposes then for the heartless, selfish bastards that they are.

    I hope they get their wish and end up old, alone, and living in disease, filth, and poverty. I really do.”

    Why do ‘Progressives’ make such nasty trolls?

    Seriously, they spew venom when someone exercises their right to Free Speech and asks them to back up the idiotic assertions they put forth.

    I hope they get their wish and end up old and alone with no loving family to take care of them, living in some authoritarian group home with some mindless drone appointed by Hillary’s metaphorical “village” changing their filthy diapers in exchange for access to the welfare teet.

  84. Paul

    “I hope they get their wish and end up old, alone, and living in disease, filth, and poverty. I really do.”

    How does make you a better person? Personally, I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, no matter how much I disagreed with them.

    Remember that the Internet tends to bring out extremes, and that not all RP supporters are like dexxel. Only focusing on comments by people like him and ignoring ones by G and Risk Fisk, encourage the worst aspects of the Internet.

    My 2 cents.

  85. I hope they get their wish and end up old, alone, and living in disease, filth, and poverty. I really do.

    They won’t, though, because they’ll have Social Security and Medicare, and I’ll bet you anything not a one of them turns it down in the name of ideological purity.

  86. “They won’t, though, because they’ll have Social Security and Medicare, and I’ll bet you anything not a one of them turns it down in the name of ideological purity.”

    You’re operating under the false assumption that it’s still going to be there when most of us are old enough to need it. Meanwhile, we’re just throwing away our income.

    Speaking of “ideological purity” and turning down medicare/welfare, Ron Paul did just that. In his medical practice (OB/GYN delivering over 4,000 babies), he never once accepted medicare or medicaid. Instead, he offered free or reduced-cost care (with very generous repayment plans) to his patients who could not afford the full cost of treatment up front. Often, it was better than the terms the government would have offered them.

    Furthermore, he put five children through college without drawing student loans for a single one of them.

    Ain’t it refreshing to see someone who practices what he preaches? Not that you so-called ‘progressives’ would know anything about that…

  87. mike

    Hey guys the NWO order is a big joke, didnt you know??

    I mean, here is the new prime minister of the United Kingdom talking about it .. what a crackpot right wing conspiracy theorist weirdo!!

  88. John Reading

    Heinously ignorant Malishus Malhissa fails to understand that proper names (capitalized) do not have a proper spelling. So long as she continues in her cowardly and pathetic lie that Ron Paul’s political philosophy is “heinous” while steadfastly changing the subject (to her favorite pastime or to spelling) when challanged, she deserves to be renamed.

    My guess: she is about 14, overweight, and seeking a lot of attention. She finds she can get it by saying outragiously malicious things online and then maliciously changing the subject when she is challanged. She might also be a Clinton supporter. They don’t just want to correct your spelling. They want to take charge of your medical care, but the attitude is the same: freedom is too dangerous to even think about and anyone who does has bad motives. I can understand how an overweight 14-year-old attention-seeker would look forward to free medical care. She would probably go often. I begin to wonder if she could say even one accurate thing about Ron Paul’s position that she disagrees with. Hillery wants to control the internet. But Ron Paul would protect Malishius Malhissifit’s right to prove to everyone what those closest to her have no doubt feared all along.

  89. just another guy

    First the disclosure, I’m a Ron Paul supporter.

    Why does everyone feel the need to take everything to the extreme. I support Ron Paul because I feel his general message of smaller goverment and lesser taxes is good. I also support the idea that rather than changing the world we should be working on fixing the good old US.
    Everyone seems to feel the threat to our society comes from terrorism or social entitlements, I see the biggest threat as our economy. We are spending much more than we bring in and if we continue down that path it leads to a bad future for EVERYONE who is an American.
    I support Ron Paul because I feel as a President he will enact meaniful change towards how we handle both domestic and international spending. When it comes to domestic policy though I feel rather secure in the idea that both the Senate and HOR will reign in any ideas that would be unworkable.
    When we elect a President it is based on the general philosophy of the man/woman. No President ever enacts every policy they wish, in fact I would say a majority of their ideas are shot down. When I look at Ron Paul, I see a man that honestly wants the best for this country and doesn’t have ties to any special interests to influance those decisions.
    To dismiss him based on disagreement with a few of his policies is folly and is only threating if you believe he will expand the power of the executive office as the current President has.

  90. Tom

    As Joe pleasantly put it….”Hes going to shock alot of people in New Hampshire com January 2008!”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_y79uDkcPI

    Ron Paul is the only true Republican candidate running for president.. With a congressional track record of integrity, honesty and unwavering commitment to principles..he is the only choice for America…
    Ron Paul 2008!

  91. Ron Paul is the third richest candidate in terms of financial support. Ron Paul is the only champion of the Constitution.

  92. John Reading

    “There are a couple of things you can always count on with Paul supporters. First, they will never realize just how contradictory they are in their positions.”

    There are a couple of things you can always count on with Paul critics. First, they will never accurately say what his positions are or why they don’t like them and secondly they will always insult those who defend him.

    Parasites who dream of uses for force are horrifed by anyone calling for voluntarism, but they have to be mighty circumspect in presenting their case. Best is to lie about Paul and his supporters, then critisize them and act put upon when they defend themselves.

    Collectivism = intellectual dishonesty. Collectivists NEVER debate honestly or courteously. They ALWAYS lie and always cheat rhetorically.

    The arguement here is that Ron Paul is wrong, but we won’t say why and anyone who likes him is nasty, but we won’t say why. So there, you nasty liberty and property Ron Paul people. Goodbye children. Real debate is too much fun to spend anymore time with such amateurs.

  93. Paul the Spud

    Wow. Just… wow.

  94. If Melissa doesnt like what people have to say to her then she should close her blog.

    Hey, dipshit–I just approved 23 comments, including yours, that got caught in moderation because you’re first-time posters, so don’t go accusing me of not liking “what people have to say.”

    I’ve given all of you, many of whom have only come here specifically to berate me, plenty of goddamned space on my blog to say whatever you like. So can it.

  95. Wow! A Live-Troll concert! How did I miss the press release?

    To all the “pummelers” — Here’s what is “heinous” about Ron Paul’s policies:

    He’s in bed with the likes of Larry Pratt, Pete Peters, Pat Buchanan, Neo-confederate groups, and he allows shit like this to be printed in his “newsletter”, and then blames it on a “ghost-writer”:

    “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,”

    Did any of you take a moment to figure out where you WERE before you posted?

  96. oddjob

    The entire point of the constitution, the Rule of Law, and libertarianism, is to prevent the gaming of the system. The constitution places strict limits on federal power. Its a shame it was never enforced (like other laws, where people actually go to jail if they are broken), since it easily could have worked for a lot longer than it did. I’m just glad people still use it to defend civil liberties.

    This absolutely no different than saying if people were perfect “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” would be the absolute way to run a society. It is also absolutely no different than saying that just because the Roman Catholic church has bishops that enable child molesting priests does not mean that Christianity is not a perfect religion.

    Yes, it’s a shame that perfection is not possible, but since it is not to adhere rigidly to a political system that only works if everyone behaves perfectly is sheer nuttiness.

    Like I said, libertarianism is just another failed utopian political philosophy.

    Thanks again for proving my point.

  97. oddjob

    (This IS absolutely no different …)

  98. oddjob

    Even the abuses of the industrial revolution (which certainly weren’t entirely free markets) placed the poor factory worker in far better conditions than he had been on the farm.

    Please understand I’m not opposed to capitalism, but untrammeled capitalism does not lead to pure benefit. If it did the progressive movement would not have arisen, would it? Have you ever read The Jungle?

    This is your “better life for the workers” from the Gilded Age:

    It was only when the whole ham was spoiled that it came into the department of Elzbieta. Cut up by the two-thousand-revolutions- a-minute flyers, and mixed with half a ton of other meat, no odor that ever was in a ham could make any difference. There was never the least attention paid to what was cut up for sausage; there would come all the way back from Europe old sausage that had been rejected, and that was moldy and white–it would be dosed with borax and glycerine, and dumped into the hoppers, and made over again for home consumption. There would be meat that had tumbled out on the floor, in the dirt and sawdust, where the workers had tramped and spit uncounted billions of consumption germs. There would be meat stored in great piles in rooms; and the water from leaky roofs would drip over it, and thousands of rats would race about on it. It was too dark in these storage places to see well, but a man could run his hand over these piles of meat and sweep off handfuls of the dried dung of rats. These rats were nuisances, and the packers would put poisoned bread out for them; they would die, and then rats, bread, and meat would go into the hoppers together. This is no fairy story and no joke; the meat would be shoveled into carts, and the man who did the shoveling would not trouble to lift out a rat even when he saw one– there were things that went into the sausage in comparison with which a poisoned rat was a tidbit. There was no place for the men to wash their hands before they ate their dinner, and so they made a practice of washing them in the water that was to be ladled into the sausage. There were the butt-ends of smoked meat, and the scraps of corned beef, and all the odds and ends of the waste of the plants, that would be dumped into old barrels in the cellar and left there. Under the system of rigid economy which the packers enforced, there were some jobs that it only paid to do once in a long time, and among these was the cleaning out of the waste barrels. Every spring they did it; and in the barrels would be dirt and rust and old nails and stale water–and cartload after cartload of it would be taken up and dumped into the hoppers with fresh meat, and sent out to the public’s breakfast. Some of it they would make into “smoked” sausage–but as the smoking took time, and was therefore expensive, they would call upon their chemistry department, and preserve it with borax and color it with gelatine to make it brown. All of their sausage came out of the same bowl, but when they came to wrap it they would stamp some of it “special,” and for this they would charge two cents more a pound.

    This is one paragraph out of Chapter 14 of The Jungle.

    Some people made out handsomely in the Gilded Age. Others knew they were getting the shaft and put a stop to it.

  99. oddjob

    It really was like that in the meat packing industry in Chicago. Upton Sinclair went in and saw it for himself.

    This one nakedly populist book put an end to these practices and resulted in the establishment of the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA. It also resulted in the Food and Drug Administration.

    It wasn’t as though the evil government you guys are so fond of railing against arose solely out of the minds of selfish legislators. Much of the regulation of big business arose out of the justifiable public outcry against shit like this.

    Libertarianism has never had a realistic answer or alternative to that, and unless you’re in your late 40’s I’ve known about libertarianism for longer than you have.

  100. oddjob

    We are spending much more than we bring in and if we continue down that path it leads to a bad future for EVERYONE who is an American.

    I agree with you. In my experience the only time that things have been healthy regarding this issue was when the Republicans ran the Congress and Clinton was president. Their mutual antagonism, plus Clinton’s bluntly pro-business economic policies, resulted in the only burst of true fiscal sanity that I can recall. (There may have been another during the Kennedy administration, but I was only three when he was shot.)

    Aside from that? You have two choices – “tax and spend” liberals or borrow and spend “conservative” Republicans.

    I’ll choose the liberals if I have to choose between two ugly choices. At least they pay as they go!

  101. oddjob

    Ron Paul is the only true Republican candidate running for president.

    Libertarianism is not a Republican philosophy. Eisenhower would have dismissed Paul as he would have dismissed Bush and Cheney, albeit for different reasons.

    What Paul says about foreign policy needs to be said. What he says aboug domestic policy has been voiced and rejected since the days of TR.

  102. “He’s in bed with the likes of Larry Pratt, Pete Peters, Pat Buchanan, Neo-confederate groups, and he allows shit like this to be printed in his “newsletter”, and then blames it on a “ghost-writer”:”

    That’s really not fair. I mean, In 20 years of being a Congressman and physician, that was the only time anyone could find something with Dr. Paul’s name on it that smacked of racism. It is an anomaly that doesn’t match up with his actions or his words. Even the Texas Monthly noted that they couldn’t find anywhere else where he had even hinted at something like that.

    Pat Buchanan is a populist and has never held office. He’s no libertarian and Ron Paul has never been “in bed” with him. Most of the dykes I know are extremely well educated and refrain from logical fallacies like the guilt by association fallacy you’ve proffered. Bad form.

  103. “Libertarianism is not a Republican philosophy.”

    Sure it is. Jefferson was a Republican (of the Republican-Democrats) and you can’t find much where Jefferson and Paul differ in their stated or actual policy. Paul is probably more of a constitutionalist actually. Jefferson abandoned the constitution when he sent the Marines to Tripoli and when he purchased the Louisiana Territory.

    Paul suggested Letters of Marque and Reprisal rather than send troops which is the constitutional remedy for terrorists and pirates.

  104. “Pat Buchanan is a populist and has never held office. He’s no libertarian and Ron Paul has never been “in bed” with him. Most of the dykes I know are extremely well educated and refrain from logical fallacies like the guilt by association fallacy you’ve proffered. Bad form.”

    Once again, I’ll ask — do you know where you ARE? Do you think I would respond to an admonishment such as “Bad Form”? OMFG! I laugh, and you are providing me with a much-needed laugh tonight.

    Like we’re on a golfing green in some posh place, and you’re going to say “Oh, PortlyDyke, old chap, bad form“, and that’s going to somehow matter to me?!? Wow. Get an internet GPS system, Rick.

    FYI I am extremely well educated. Well educated enough to notice that you didn’t say a word about the Pratt, Peters, and neo-Confederate connections — only questioned the Buchanan connection as “guilty by association”. In my mind, any man who accepts the endorsements, money, and speaking engagements of racists is not an “upholder of the constitution” — he’s either a racist, or a racist sympathizer, and he’s not my presidential candidate. –bBecause his comments were heinous, and he never formally apologized or retracted them — just blamed them on someone else.

    So much for the “responsible” Dr. Paul.

    I’m not even going to go into the Homosexuality is the same as bestiality/pedophilia meme — it would just be . . . what’s the word I’m looking for? . . . . not “bad form” — just “too easy”.

  105. “FYI I am extremely well educated. Well educated enough to notice that you didn’t say a word about the Pratt, Peters, and neo-Confederate connections”

    If you were as well educated as you claim you would not for a second time repeat a logical fallacy and without any substance to boot. I did say something about this when I admonished you for using poor debate tactics. There are no such “connections”. If you point to some article any of these people have posted in admiration of Ron Paul – even David Duke says nice things about Ron Paul – it has nothing whatsoever to do with Ron Paul’s opinion of *them*.

    He isn’t a racist or bigot and this is what RP has to say on the matter of race.

    “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

  106. oddjob

    Sure it is. Jefferson was a Republican (of the Republican-Democrats) and you can’t find much where Jefferson and Paul differ in their stated or actual policy.

    Thanks for proving my point, since the Democratic Republicans over time morphed into the party we know as the Democratic Party, not into the Republican Party, which as I’m sure you know began shortly before the Civil War.

  107. oddjob

    Paul is probably more of a constitutionalist actually. Jefferson abandoned the constitution when he sent the Marines to Tripoli and when he purchased the Louisiana Territory.

    Paul suggested Letters of Marque and Reprisal rather than send troops which is the constitutional remedy for terrorists and pirates.

    Again, thanks for demonstrating the unworkably utopian nature of your political philosophy. QED.

  108. Paul the Spud

    You really have to love these “Ron Paul = The Constitution Supporters,” who, so inspired by his “Constitutionalist” stance, feel the need to go to a blog with an opposing viewpoint to “pummel” and silence it.

    Oh, no, wait… you don’t.

  109. oddjob

    Jefferson also makes an odd libertarian hero since he firmly disapproved of the concept of the corporation, something no true libertarian ought to care one way or the other about. Jefferson’s concept of the ideal society was an agrarian society full of educated farmers who spent their free time educating themselves in the classics (something like what he himself did).

  110. Paul the Spud

    Misplaced “. Argh.

  111. I didn’t come here because some other blog asked me to to so. I did a blog search on Ron Paul and this blog was second from the last on the page. It was also not my intent to “pummel” anyone. Seems to me that there won’t be any silencing going on at all. Melissa is quite tolerant of other view points.

  112. Well, if anything, this thread proves the dedicated server is working. 🙂

  113. Pingback: Daily Round-Up at Shakesville

  114. Pingback: Remember when John McCain was a legitimate Presidential candidate? at Shakesville

  115. Pingback: William K. Wolfrum » Blog Archive » Remember when John McCain was a legitimate Presidential candidate?

  116. “Jefferson also makes an odd libertarian hero since he firmly disapproved of the concept of the corporation, something no true libertarian ought to care one way or the other about.”

    I think there’s merit in his disapproval. A corporation is a government charter and makes the entity a quasi-government organization. It hinders free trade by regulating the business but it also provides for privileges not accorded private, unregulated business entities; which protects the fiduciaries from any personal liability except in the most extreme of circumstances.

    A corporate officer can defraud consumers and be shielded from personal liability – the corporation is punished but the officers and shareholders walk away scot-free for the most part having taken on no personal liability for any bad deeds executed on their behalf.

  117. Paul

    I’d just like to commend Oddjob and Risk Fisk for the their debate. Interesting seeing the different viewpoints and no mud slinging.

    Paul the Spud. I think you misunderstood the intention of RP supporters. They do not intend to silence their critics, but they will defend their position and candidate like anyone would do, Repub or Democrat. Even if you don’t agree with their stance, you have to admire their passion especially since he is, at the moment, a small candidate.

    Of course you’re going to get obnoxious RP supporters come in, but what campaign in the history of the world has not had a few annoying, obnoxious supporters? Focusing on ppl like Risk Fisk or Oddjob instead of ones like Portly Dyke and dexxel encourages rational discussion and will at least hopefully bring out some sort of understanding or cooperation in the future.

  118. Tracy Saboe

    Actually it’s the idea that you can pass a law and the world will magically change that’s utopion. The idea that government can bomb and wage war to bring peace in a region is utopian. The idea that you can spread democracy through force of arms is utopian.

    libertarianism isn’t utopian. It’s the idea that laws can change the laws of economics and reality that is.

    Seriously. Paul would abolish the income tax. And not replace it with anything. I don’t know about you but for me that’s worth about $1,000 a year. Many people who are far wealthier then me that don’t accept government money getm uch more then that confiscated from them.

    If you don’t agree with Paul’s philosophies, support him for your own pocketbook is nothing else.

    And his more radical things that you don’t agree with, he has to lobby congress to pass legislation to repeal most of the laws he doesn’t like. At worst he’d just become “Dr Veto” how is that bad? At least Congress won’t be passing more laws that hurt us.

    Tracy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s