printWhen he “stands tall” and unapologetic for the principles of freedom, Ron Paul is unbeatable. Just because Chris Wallace frames Paul’s ancient comments about AIDS, in the book Freedom Under Siege, as “controversial”—it doesn’t make them so. Here Paul states clearly the scientific facts about sexually transmitted diseases—facts that have been known for hundreds of years—and the implication of personal responsibility in a free society.
As to the future of the Paul campaign: Once people make the arduous journey to liberty and arrive at an understanding of it, they cleave to the Truth. So Paul’s numbers will be sustained—and rise.
Next Wallace makes a stupid point, accusing Paul of legislative ineffectiveness because of the 620 measured sponsored, only four of which ever made it to the House floor. The fact that Ron Paul’s attempts at passing legislation to repeal other legislation have fallen short is not an indictment of the Congressman, but of Congress. He fulfilled his mandate to try and beat back the state.
Here is the scrappy, assertive Ron Paul:
He has gotten Republicans to at least discuss the possibility of a foreign policy that defends the just interests of the US, rather than the interests of countries on the other side of the world. That is a major contribution.
The GOP establishment is working on cheating Ron Paul & the voters of Iowa. From what I’ve read, the votes for the Iowa caucus will be counted in Illinois. Stalin would be proud of the GOP establishment for using one of his favorite tactics.
I have many issues with Ron Paul, being no libertarian, but I have finally made the decision to vote for him in the primaries. No matter what issues he has, everyone else is far worse. I used to be inclined toward Bachmann, but she has become completely unhinged, declaring Russia and China as part of the “axis-of-evil”.
RP is going to accomplish way more than that. Since he hasn’t a prayer of actually getting the nomination of a party that’s gone as neo-con and corporate-liberal as has the Republican pty, he simply must be doing it to establish a base for a substantial 3rd Party candidacy. And that, by throwing the election to an Obama with not much more than 40% of the vote, will lead to a terrific political crisis. At a minumum, he can put the shitface Republicrat Party out of its misery; at a maximum, combined with a late-year economic collapse and war with Iran, he can spark off a Civil War in America.
Wallace is a complete snot who likes to insert words into Congressman Paul that he does not say.
As for “accomplishment” – how many people remember Konrad Adenauer vs. remember Adolph Hilter (or Yeltsin vs. Stalin). Poor Ron Paul did not sponsor immigration bills like Kennedy or Leave No Child Behind or “health care” or OSHA or EPA or War on Drugs or Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Homeland Security/TSA or other “accomplishments” to bankrupt us and take away our freedoms and property.
I guess AIDS is caused by Right Wing Homophobes and not sexual transmission! Right now, Rick Santorum is sneaking into Gay Bathhouses with vials of the virus!
Whatever Ron Paul’s flaws, one has to stand with an advocate of human rights against these statist media & statist politicians.
It seemed to me that Chris Wallace got a little red-in-the-face during the interview I watched on TV.
Wallace, Bob Beckel, and a few more simply do not want to acknowledge Ron Paul’s ideas and philosophy. If his points were recognized, then these “heads” would no longer be able to say that GOVERNMENT PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS. They would have to say THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE BORN WITH RIGHTS INDEPENDENT OF GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER ENTITY.
In ATLAS SHRUGGED, there is a line something to the effect that there is no way to rule honest men. Ron Paul is that honest man trying to explain that to these “heads” who will neither argue for his position nor against his position for either would acknowledge Paul’s position. And that is what they fear.
I take the fact that WaPo’s Richard Cohen basically called Paul a Nazi today (see here) as a sign of the Establishment’s desperation.
Next Wallace makes a stupid point, accusing Paul of legislative ineffectiveness because of the 620 measured sponsored, only four of which ever made it to the House floor.
So Paul was never able to build a consensus among fellow members to ever get legislation passed. Therefore, he would not be an effective president because he would not be able to work with congress on running the nation.
To which I reply, it doesn’t take much consensus building to wield the VETO pen. My interest in Paul as president has nothing to do with him passing new laws. I want him to veto as much crap coming out of congress as possible.