Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Live-Slogging the Ron Paul New Hampshire Speech

Posted by on Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Ron Paul is talking. CNN has video over here, if you want to count how many giggles Ron Paul lets out.

"President Paul," the crowd chants. Ron Paul introduces his family. He mistakenly introduces Linda as Lisa. He's been onstage for less than two minutes and already giggled three times. He said "I want to thank the Union Leader for not endorsing me." Paul says he called Romney, who had "a clear-cut victory, though we're nibbling at his heels. [Giggle!]"

Paul thanks the crowd. He says "I sort of have to chuckle when they describe you and me as 'dangerous' [evil titter]." The crowd chants "President Paul!" in response to that. "We will remain a danger to the Federal Reserve system as well." The crowd chants "end the Fed!" and Paul responds, "that's right! End the Fed! Yeagh!" We get a lecture about the history of the American monetary system according to Ron Paul, followed by a rant against sending our young people "around the world, hither and yon," which he says other people have "tokenly talked about," but it is the "liberty movement" that says "we have had enough of us sending our kids and our money around the world."

(Continued after the jump.)

Ron Paul says he will bring the troops home without causing an "economic crisis." Ron Paul clearly thinks the military is an economic issue, not a human issue, though he does a good job of couching it as a human concern in order to rope in the kids. He promises again to cut at least one trillion dollars from the budget.

Paul whines about people who are too dependent on the government. He's basically saying we need to wean people on Social Security and Medicare off the government teat. Government's role, he says, should be "the protection of liberty." The crowd chants "Ron Paul Revolution/Give us back our Constitution." Paul smiles, "Wonderful, wonderful! [titter.]" Liberty, he says, means you have a right to privacy and you have the right to "keep and spend your money as you want to...freedom is popular, don't you know that? [Hyungh.]"

He's really kind of spacing out, now. He argues against anonymous people who call Paul supporters "selfish." He says "the bleeding hearts" have good intentions. "The humanitarian instincts are there across the board," but if you are a "true humanitarian," you have to argue for the free market and isolationist foreign policies. "I didn't know you were out there," he says to his audience, and then he closes to more chants of "President Paul."

Jesus Christ, don't any of these Republicans use a teleprompter any more? Or has President Obama made teleprompters completely verboten? Paul's speech was totally incoherent, rambling, and it wasn't doing Paul any favors so far as picking up new or interested voters.

 

Comments (54) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Cato the Younger Younger 1
Trillion dollars? Bet that will include Social Security, Medicare, Federal student aid. You know, that ugly government stuff that those of the libertarian mold hate so much.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on January 10, 2012 at 6:13 PM · Report this
DOUG. 2
I heard the speech and the chants on the radio. Were there any women in his audience? Does he realize they have the right to vote now?
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on January 10, 2012 at 6:13 PM · Report this
3
I've got some issues with some Ron Paul's ideas but the military and our involvement in wars is an economic problem. It's pretty much our biggest economic problem. It's also a human problem. Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate in the Republican field. He's also a veteran. So I'm pretty fucking sure he knows the real human cost of going to war. Or did you miss the "I went" shot he hit Newt with on Saturday.

Take whatever shots you want at his policies but the fact that he thinks that war and the military are economic problems isn't really a snicker-worthy view. One of Paul's biggest bases is members of the military. He gets more donations from members of all branches of the US military than all other candidates. And for good reason.
Posted by moosefan on January 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM · Report this
4
Why do you insist that those of us on the left have to be squished into the same love-seat with the assholes on the right? Please do your part and make a brave stand to help make the blue states bluer and the red states redder! Screw the assholes everywhere and screw, screw, screw the red states! True; things may be chaotic at first, but eventually the blue state utopias we create will spread the world over; it's inevitable. Man up and lead by goddamned example will ya? You are well aware that with the new media [internet] people dont get their news from three sources anymore; people go exactly where they want and we are rapidly splintering up. This explains the whole Ron Paul phenomenon. Its Inevitable! We are going our way and they are going their way. Eff em! With your pro-establishment position your just delaying the wonderful and inevitable blue state utopias of the future. Please help us lift this enormous golden monkey wrench and join the Ron Paul revolution! Otherwise good luck with a lifetime of center-right puppet politicians blowing smoke up your pant leg.
Posted by bluer is better on January 10, 2012 at 6:35 PM · Report this
5
Liberty, according to Ron Paul, means you have a right to privacy, but not a right to decide what happens in your own uterus.
Posted by One Breath on January 10, 2012 at 6:36 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 6
@3,

Did he actually serve in combat? I can't find any information about it online. So, if you don't know more than I, I don't see how you can be "pretty fucking sure" about what Ron Paul does or doesn't know about the true cost of war.

Military service members are also overwhelmingly Republican, the Party of War, which kind of negates your reasoning for why Ron Paul has so much military support.
Posted by keshmeshi on January 10, 2012 at 6:40 PM · Report this
COMTE 7
The fact that Paul entered to the "Imperial March Theme" from "The Empire Strikes Back" says pretty much everything you need to know...
Posted by COMTE on January 10, 2012 at 6:52 PM · Report this
8
@6, does that explain why all those service members aren't supporting anyone else in the Republican field? Ron Paul has been an outspoken opponent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since before they started. He's criticized Bush heavily, all the other candidates, and Obama for their views/policies on the wars. Ron Paul also criticized the recent plan to cut medical benefits for vets. Saying we sent them over to war and we promised them care and cutting services now is failing these people twice. For a man who's hell bent on cutting spending from just about everywhere I say that's a pretty bold stance. And one of the many reasons soldiers are giving RP money hand over fist. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/…

He was a active duty flight surgeon for 2 years and then a member of the Air National Guard for an additional 3 years.
Posted by moosefan on January 10, 2012 at 6:54 PM · Report this
the idiot formerly known as kk 9
Ron Paul is a whackjob, but the more Republicans vote for this crazy bastard, the better for the rest of us.

He's not far afield from Lyndon LaRouche, except the Democrats don't turn out in droves, donate millions and vote for LaRouche.

His statements on imperialism are the equivalent of a broken clock telling the correct time twice a day.

Please rationalize tying our economy to oligarchic mine owners in South Africa and Russia. Please.
Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on January 10, 2012 at 6:56 PM · Report this
10
he operated on the wounded... he might have an idea of the cost of war.
Posted by tread well on January 10, 2012 at 7:03 PM · Report this
11
Live my ass, commercial every minute.
Posted by lookitsaustin on January 10, 2012 at 7:13 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 12
@10,

Can you cite that?
Posted by keshmeshi on January 10, 2012 at 7:27 PM · Report this
13
Can someone tell me what, exactly, Ron Paul would be able to *do* if he got into office? He's got lots of crazy ideas about abolishing the fed and this and that, but wouldn't congress pretty much put the kibosh on any of those activites? I get the feeling that if he did get into the office, he'd just wander around spouting off about his economic ideas to the white house staff, and pretty much forget about the whole president thing for four years.
Posted by crazyisascrazydoes on January 10, 2012 at 7:53 PM · Report this
DOUG. 14
@5: Ron Paul does NOT believe in a right to privacy.
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on January 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 15
he's really really old. 76. he has no business being president, or even wasting america's time saying he does.
Posted by Max Solomon on January 10, 2012 at 8:18 PM · Report this
16
@5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_Peop…

No, he believes a person should have NO PRIVACY in the bedroom, and is looking to recriminalize homosexuality on the state level.
Posted by Ron Paul, fucking monster. on January 10, 2012 at 8:20 PM · Report this
17
Are you people on the same planet? We're in trouble. If we don't turn this Ouroborus death-machine around, IMMEDIATELY, we're all gonna get our dicks and our pussies covered in SHIT!

Take all the hatred you had towards George W. Bush, apply it to Obama, and then look at Paul. He's the only candidate standing outside of "business as usual," and isn't owned or controlled by the same corrupt networks operating behind the scenes now.

We've gone from a democratic republic, to a republic, to democracy, to socialism, to fascism, and we are now moving through the next transision, into total tyranny. It's not about D's and R's, black or white, man or woman, gay or straight, it's about individual human beings, with the entitlement of life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. It's about the future of our civilization, and in no sensationalized or dramatic fashion, this is both one of our last shots at a peaceful solution and the most important election in history.
Posted by Bumber on January 10, 2012 at 8:53 PM · Report this
18
You lost me at the Team America World Police Reference at the beginning of your unsupported apocalyptic diatribe.
Posted by Fuckyeah on January 10, 2012 at 10:33 PM · Report this
19
Seems like the only way Paul Constant and the Stranger crowd can disagree with someone on the other side of the aisle is to condescend and belittle. Paul is not a heartless idiot like Santorum or Gingrich. He's right only Congress should be able to declare war, and he's right only Congress has the constitutional right to coin money (not the fed). So he's a republican that wants to cut government and is pro-life that doesn't make he and his followers whack jobs or nut job Larouchies. Persoanlly, I'd LOVE to see Ron Paul Obama debates, would be SOOOO much better than any of the other candidates.
Posted by electron on January 11, 2012 at 12:05 AM · Report this
20
Re: privacy: I know exactly what Ron Paul thinks about privacy, which is that you should have lots from the feds and absolutely none from the states, if that's what the states want. If you read all of Constant's post, you'd know that "Liberty=right to privacy" came from Ron Paul's speech last night, not from me.
Posted by One Breath on January 11, 2012 at 5:05 AM · Report this
21
@19: No. That's not what makes his followers whack jobs. Their rants about Ourobourus death machines with shit on their dick, and their inability to take their meds on time is what makes them whack jobs. Their support of Ron Paul is just another symptom.
Posted by captdrastic on January 11, 2012 at 7:17 AM · Report this
undead ayn rand 22
@19: "Paul is not a heartless idiot like Santorum or Gingrich."

If you're a white heterosexual Christian male.

"Persoanlly, I'd LOVE to see Ron Paul Obama debates, would be SOOOO much better than any of the other candidates."
I would too, honestly.

@20: "I know exactly what Ron Paul thinks about privacy, which is that you should have lots from the feds and absolutely none from the states, if that's what the states want."

Yup. Paul's legislated against privacy for what you do in the bedroom, Paul "cares" about you being arrested for homosexuality, in that he wants you to be.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 11, 2012 at 8:48 AM · Report this
undead ayn rand 23
@10: "he operated on the wounded... he might have an idea of the cost of war."

Even still, he doesn't want federal operations, but he's fine with the operations of corporate militias and mercenaries. Blackwater can operate unconstrained by the Federal government, hooray!
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 11, 2012 at 8:49 AM · Report this
24
Unsupported apocalyptic visions and unmedicated rants. Sorry, I thought team america was a good movie and that happens to be on of my favorite parts, I thought you guys were "cool" I guess not. How do you feel about the direction we're heading economically and globally? How about the NDAA and SOPA, or even the USA PATRIOT Act? The writing's on the wall, we're heading down a dangerous path. WWIII, a dollar collapse, and martial law are all realities and are edging closer everyday, don't you guys keep up with the news? And where are you getting this, "outlaw homosexuality" crap? He said marriage isn't a federal issue and would allow same sex marriages. What part of the constitution amd bill of rights do you agree and disagree with? Romney, Obama, and Bush are all the same established big government party, who isn't apart of that group? One candidate, Ron Paul.
Posted by Bumber on January 11, 2012 at 10:13 AM · Report this
undead ayn rand 25
@24: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/We_the_Peop…

Which would allow states to illegalize homosexuality and "deviant" behavior, removing all right to privacy.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 11, 2012 at 10:22 AM · Report this
undead ayn rand 26
Seriously, you Paultards know so little about Ron Paul it's sickening.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 11, 2012 at 10:23 AM · Report this
27
Really? Cause your logic is presumptuous. Explain the truth about Ron Paul to my naive uneducated brain. And who do you support, by the way?
Posted by Bumber on January 11, 2012 at 10:41 AM · Report this
undead ayn rand 28
"Cause your logic is presumptuous."

My logic is predicated on Paul's fans' spectacularly shitty understanding of what States Rights mean, the history of States Rights politics, Paul fans' poor understanding of what Paul's proposed legislation means, the subjectivity of Constitutional literalists, and Paul's similarly subjective interpretation of "civil rights".

I presume very little.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 11, 2012 at 10:57 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 29
I have proof that Mittens served time amongst the French Savages instead of in combat.

Tried finding data on Ron Paul, but records from then are written on clay tablets and not easily searchable.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM · Report this
30
I think you're misinformed and biased, and you failed to educate my feeble mind. Also, you aren't addressing any of the points I brought up, and I feel this discussion is a waste of time. Until you see the world for what it is, I guess you just won't care about death and oppression hidden behind a politically correct veil of deception. End the wars, end the fed, and end the corporate crony regime. If you like socialism, communism, or fascism, there are places for you to go, I'll keep my democratic republic.
Posted by Bumber on January 11, 2012 at 12:46 PM · Report this
31
Ron Paul is not perfect and his beliefs as far as privacy and state rights are concerned are just that, beliefs. Based on his record he wants Government out of peoples lives so they have more choice not in their lives removing them. The issues that he could implement would be decreasing the deficit by bringing back troops from overseas, which is not isolationism unless exporting the military is some sort of trade. Other than that he could attempt to cut back Government with an emphasis on Liberty and stripping out special interests. Democrats and Republicans would temper his aspirations but it would create a very loud message that the special interests and lobbyists that essentially run the Federal Government would no longer be tolerated. He is by no means perfect but he is likely better than the corrupted Government/Lobbyists running things now. As always in Politics he is the lesser of 2 evils.
Posted by MacksPower on January 11, 2012 at 12:57 PM · Report this
32
Ron Paul is not perfect and his beliefs as far as privacy and state rights are concerned are just that, beliefs. Based on his record he wants Government out of peoples lives so they have more choice not in their lives removing them. The issues that he could implement would be decreasing the deficit by bringing back troops from overseas, which is not isolationism unless exporting the military is some sort of trade. Other than that he could attempt to cut back Government with an emphasis on Liberty and stripping out special interests. Democrats and Republicans would temper his aspirations but it would create a very loud message that the special interests and lobbyists that essentially run the Federal Government would no longer be tolerated. He is by no means perfect but he is likely better than the corrupted Government/Lobbyists running things now. As always in Politics it is a choice between the lesser of 2 evils.
Posted by MacksPower on January 11, 2012 at 1:02 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 33
@31: "his beliefs as far as privacy and state rights are concerned are just that, beliefs. Based on his record he wants Government out of peoples lives so they have more choice not in their lives removing them. "

Again, Paultards have no clue what they're talking about.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM · Report this
34
Enlighten us. The name calling and appeal to groupthink doesn't add much to the discussion.
Posted by MacksPower on January 11, 2012 at 1:33 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 35
@34: I already linked in this thread to an item of Paul's legislation that would literally remove all rights to privacy and allow homosexuality and other "deviant behavior" to be a jailable offense again.

How are you not aware of this? Why do you have such a shallow understanding of his proposed legislation? Why do you take "FREEDOMS" and "LIBERTIES" at face value?
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 11, 2012 at 1:41 PM · Report this
36
I was not aware he could magically implement that legislation. If it was going to pass it would have. The states rights issues are a side issue because he couldn't unilaterally implement it, that is what checks and balances are all about, and even if he did the states are not going to decide to implement stupid laws or they would be quickly voted out of office. What he would have control over would be restrained by congress but he would be able to bring the troops back, try to scale back the Federal Government and strip it of alot of its powers while sending a message about liberty, special interests and corruption. I am also sure other Presidents would have loved to implement similar policies but that does not mean they can make it happen. What matters is what he would be able to do which would be to make some much needed changes and to encourage a better direction for congress to focus on.
Posted by MacksPower on January 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM · Report this
37
Individual rights have presidency over states rights. But, again, I think we're forgetting the larger issue here, which is the rights of gay brown people in the desert being blown up next to all the old, young, and straight people. Is that not important?
Posted by Bumber on January 11, 2012 at 2:18 PM · Report this
38
My point exactly.Either stop the wars or don't due to some far fetched fear that states will become Christian fiefdoms.
Posted by MacksPower on January 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 39
@36: "I was not aware he could magically implement that legislation."

Stop claiming that Ron Paul wants privacy and "liberty" if he's working to erode privacy and civil rights. If there's no way that he can sneak this past Congress, there's no way he's going to get anything GOOD done in Congress. This is why people have issues taking Ron Paul fans seriously.

@37: I approve of and appreciate his efforts in fixing this along with other, far more well meaning and progressive members of Congress. I would never get this man near Presidential office, however.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 11, 2012 at 2:24 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 40
"some far fetched fear that states will become Christian fiefdoms"

Ron Paul literally does not believe in the separation of Church and State. If you've paid any attention at all to State legislation and State constitutions, you know that this is not far-fetched at all.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 11, 2012 at 2:26 PM · Report this
41
@39 "If there's no way that he can sneak this past Congress, there's no way he's going to get anything GOOD done in Congress. This is why people have issues taking Ron Paul fans seriously."

So if he can't "sneak" bad legislation past the Congress that means they will not pass good legislation? I think your grasping at straws. The whole point is to stop someone from "sneaking" past bad legislation while passing good legislation.
Posted by MacksPower on January 11, 2012 at 2:58 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 42
@41: "So if he can't "sneak" bad legislation past the Congress that means they will not pass good legislation? I think your grasping at straws. The whole point is to stop someone from "sneaking" past bad legislation while passing good legislation."

So I shouldn't trust Obama, but I should trust implicitly someone who makes re-criminalizing homosexuality and legalizing segregation necessary items of legislation?
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 11, 2012 at 3:33 PM · Report this
43
Cmon undead Ayn Rand. You obviously are biased towards libertarians and Ron Paul supporters and the man himself, look at your username. I feel you are displaying the most prejudice and hate with your accusations and name calling. If you're so afraid of change, why'd you vote for Obama? I think you have a fear of old white republicans, or you feel that the greatest times of our nation are not self evident that the constution, integrity, and honesty work. If you want a socialist nanny/police state, you can go to North Korea, but I think our freedom and heritage is worth fighting for, even if we have our imperfections. Ron Paul has a history of standing up for individuals and their rights. He has been the only voice of reason in a thunderous orchestra of intimidation, manipulation, deception, and corruption. You're issues with racism and sexism are trivial compared to what's at stake. None of those things will matter if we don't stop the establishment and change directions. Partisanship is an illusion, and what is accepted as fact is far from the truth. Ron Paul sounds crazy, but only to a crazy world. When history remembers him, he will be seen as a great man of character and courage, and he will stand amongst the greatest minds and civil leaders and spiritual activists. But the willfully ignorant and the bigots, like yourself, you will be standing with the vicious, jealous, pias, wicked, psychotic, murderous, vindictive, twisted, vile, corrupt, masochistic trash like the kkk and the Nazis. The bizarre minions of an evil oppressive group of maniacal warlords, who hate the goodness and joy of life.
You can piss your pants about states rights all you want, but you, unlike us paultards, have an option of moving to your ideal government. We do not, because what we want is here, it's just been hijacked. It's time to reevaluate your perceptions on America and the world, then maybe you can see Ron Paul with eyes unclouded by hatred and depravity. Or you can find a God.
More...
Posted by Bumbers on January 11, 2012 at 4:42 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 44
@43: "Ron Paul has a history of standing up for individuals and their rights."

Saying this does not make it so. Ron Paul sticks up for corporations and States Rights. That is obvious by all the legislation put forth, no matter how many bills he says "no" to. His intentions are clear.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 12, 2012 at 7:59 AM · Report this
45
@42 "So I shouldn't trust Obama, but I should trust implicitly someone who makes re-criminalizing homosexuality and legalizing segregation necessary items of legislation?"

Yes because Obama has signed the NDAA potentially doing something analogous to what you are talking about by undermining habeas corpus on a federal level. What you are afraid Ron Paul may possibly do, though it is very very unlikely, would be on the much less troubling state level. At least with the latter there is a choice to leave the state. With the former one would have to leave the country. Then taking into account spending and wars along with who has the more sane foreign policy views I would say Ron Paul is the lesser of 2 evils.
Posted by MacksPower on January 12, 2012 at 12:35 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 46
@46: "At least with the latter there is a choice to leave the state."

Statements coming entirely from Privilege.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 12, 2012 at 1:00 PM · Report this
47
@45 "Statements coming entirely from Privilege."

I have no privilege and actually privilege would make it harder to leave. Owning a house means it has to be sold whereas renters can pick up and rent another house. States are already determining gay marriage issues so there would be no change there. Also you ignore how much privilege one needs to leave the country. Abortions would never be outlawed in every state so even that is not an issue whereas under the right circumstances the federal government could do just that.
Posted by MacksPower on January 12, 2012 at 1:34 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 48
@47: "I have no privilege and actually privilege would make it harder to leave."

You're not bolstering your case, here.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 12, 2012 at 1:37 PM · Report this
49
@48 You're not bolstering your case, here.

You are ignoring that what may be done on a state level also may be done on a federal level.
Posted by MacksPower on January 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 50
Ron Paul wants zero privacy rights in the bedroom. That is what I know. He is a monstrously fundamentalist zealot and he is absolutely untrustworthy in any high office.

States' Rights is about the erosion of civil rights for everyone in this country, not about actual Liberty and Freedom.
Posted by undead ayn rand on January 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM · Report this
51
@undead Ayn Rand
"He is a monstrously fundamental zealot and he is absolutely untrustworthy in any high office"

Your claims are baseless, objective, derogatory, redundant, naive, and close minded. Throughout the entire thread you have built strawman after strawman, using generalizing name calling and slanderous assumptions. You obviously have no clue what planet you're on and are completely out of touch with the real world. Do you not care about Obama continuing all of the military adventures started by Bush? Or how about not closing GITMO? What about the bailout for the "1%" ? what the he'll do you think about anything? All you want to do is fearmonger the consequences of the constitution and liberty? Freedom is given to everyone equally, but collectivism pits groups off against one another to divide and conquer. If you could learn to drop the petty namecalling and close minded bigotry, and maybe discuss the issues and the situation and whom is most capable of addressig those issues, maybe we can get along and actually reason our differences. You pick out a sentence and attack it, but you disregard everything else being written. How does willful ignorance and biased groupthink help you find the truth? You can't just filter life or discussion through what you deem is acceptable. You've lost this argument. Ron Paul is more trustworthy, deserving, capable, principled, genuine, kind, qualified, and beneficial of all the candidates running. I say, lets try something different, this is the 21st century, I'm not racist, sexist, homophobic, meanspirited, or spiteful, and I've met a lot of people just like me, from every race and origin, that are well meaning, honest, lifeloving, truthseekers. We may disagree on some things, but we know how to coexist. We could have anarchy, and it might work, but a truly free democratic republic is proven to work and will help us reach the next level of civilization. Barack, Newt, Mittens, and the rest of the freakshow, are business as usual, Ron Paul is truly the underdog, and he is known in his district as, " the tax payers best friend." I could site articles and videos and books or whatever, but I have my own thoughts and opinions that I have developed on my own, so I speak (or type) from the heart, and I don't trust the United States Government or it's affiliated entities, but I trust the constitution, liberty, and Ron Paul. We have literally been hijacked, and this is the first time a noninsider is a major contender in the race, Ron is not for sale. Obama is the most lobbied president ever, the worst president ever, (and that's tough next to Bush and Carter) the laziest, the most egotistical, deceitful, stonewalled, murderous, treasonous, criminal, and corrupt president ever in the history of the US, But! He's clean, articulate, and good looking. If we see another term of Obama, we may never see another election.

So yeah, when you compare Ron Paul's voting record, personal life, and speeches given to all the other presidents in the past 50 years, he is an exceptional choice as president. And like Obiwan, he may be our only hope. Get with the winning team while you still can, because on the side you're currently standing, is amonsgst the most vicious and vile creatures to have ever come out of a womb. It's time to either watch it all go up, or watch the beginning of a new renaissance period. It really is as epic and important as that. Are you familiar with bohemian grove, Bilderberg, trilateral commission, the CFR, the league of nations, the influence of nonprofit groups, (Ford Foundation, Carnegie endowment for international peace, rockefeller foundation, etc.) Fabian society, or even George HW Bush's speech on September 11, 1991 about a New World Order. How about Obama's family connections to the CIA, hence his romantic fascination with them, and how he was basically groomed for the office by Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others. Really, he should be the on you're worried about getting into office, just look what he's done in 3 years! You never answered my question though, who do you support or what is your solution, other than that, fix your damn brain.
More...
Posted by Bumber on January 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM · Report this
52
Amazing! I listened and watched the entire speech and I wonder if this article is talking about some other clip? The description given just doesn't match the content. Watch the clip yourself and ask yourself why the author has such a negative bias against Ron Paul? I would venture that this author sits in rapture as Mr. Obama's endlessly repeats his "Let me make clear..." as he flat out lies to us. Goddamn, I am sick of snarky, snide, dismissive liberals. And I am coming at this from the Left!
Posted by VizMike on January 13, 2012 at 8:39 AM · Report this
53
VizMiek #52:

The "negative bias" comes because we don't like the positions he espouses. His economic policies are insane (the gold standard only makes sense to people who refuse to do the math) and his plans for the Federal government would essentially return the US to the days of the Articles of Confederation. Since he's got a history of blatant racism that he refuses to own or repudiate, it's pretty clear that he wants to do this to roll back some or all of the protections the federal government has put in place to protect people's civil rights over the last century-plus. Yes, he's a man of his principles, but he shows no remorse about lying about them should he feel it convenient to do so.
Posted by BrianX on January 13, 2012 at 12:14 PM · Report this
54
@53

You aren't serious, are you? Have you listened to his speeches on the floor, or the interviews and debates? His economic policies are insane to someone who only knows fractional reserve banking and a conterfeipt fiat currency issued through a private company. There is no proof, other than the newsletters that he is racist, in fact there's proof he wasn't a racist in the 70's in texas while practicing medicine, which is known to be transitioning through integration, and racism was prevalent. But those are character attacks. What I ask you is, are you supporting the continuation of all the decisions made by Bush, "staying the course"? I mean, honestly, what are the differences between Obama and Bush, other than skintone? Ron has stood up for the individuals, civil liberties, the constitution, sound money, free markets, and a peace oriented approach to foreign policy. If people would just grow up and listen, like #52, we would all be better off. Take off your team jerseys and start caring about the people, not your scores and dogma. This is all about the future for our kids and softening the blow of the approaching storm. Oh, and when the federal government is, "granting rights"(which is of itself unconstitutional and is not liberty, rights are given by your creator, not a government) they are returning rights to you, that they took away to begin with, like a prisoner hanging hid shackles loosened. The antipauls just sound juvenile and uneducated as far as I've seen, and the supporters know there stuff, regardless of your biased liberal bigoted viewpoint.
Posted by Bumber on January 15, 2012 at 12:27 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy