Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
he voted no on unconstitutional legislation. he voted aye on constitutional legislation. Unfortunately the vast majority of shit churning out of congress is unconstitutional to libertarians and other "as-written" constitutional scholars.
The fact that he didn't get much passed just proves to me that he never sold his soul. I care more about him sticking to his principles and fighting the good fight than his ability to make back room deals with crooks and charlatans. As President they will be forced to come to him and they will have to make concessions to get their agenda through and that's where Paul wins and that's where the people will win too.
The partisan scum on both sides of the fence are starting to feel a little shaken if their attacks on the congressman are any indication. Soon, some of you will be calling for a CIA hit if he does enough damage to your precious establishment political system. ROFLMAO.
The partisan scum on both sides of the fence are starting to feel a little shaken if their attacks on the congressman are any indication. Soon, some of you will be calling for a CIA hit if he does enough damage to your precious establishment political system. ROFLMAO.
Someone needs some meds.
The partisan scum on both sides of the fence are starting to feel a little shaken if their attacks on the congressman are any indication. Soon, some of you will be calling for a CIA hit if he does enough damage to your precious establishment political system. ROFLMAO.
Someone needs some meds.
The Paul-bots have this idea that Ron Paul is somehow different from everyone else in Washington. He isn't. He just mouths different sound bites. And they lap it up, pretty much the same way the left did with Obama.
The truth is Paul is totally unqualified to be president. He has a demonstated inability to work within the system, and his views are so far out of any kind of mainstream that he cannot build any consensus. His wookie-suiters take this as a badge of pride, that he hasn't "sold out". But the truth is that to be successful in getting your agenda through you have to work with people. And this he cannot do.
He has wasted 30 years and poorly served his constitutents.
He blames America for 9/11 and supports legalizing drugs.Someone needs some meds.
The Paul-bots have this idea that Ron Paul is somehow different from everyone else in Washington. He isn't. He just mouths different sound bites. And they lap it up, pretty much the same way the left did with Obama.
The truth is Paul is totally unqualified to be president. He has a demonstated inability to work within the system, and his views are so far out of any kind of mainstream that he cannot build any consensus. His wookie-suiters take this as a badge of pride, that he hasn't "sold out". But the truth is that to be successful in getting your agenda through you have to work with people. And this he cannot do.
He has wasted 30 years and poorly served his constitutents.
Yeah it's sad really that he couldn't find enough true conservatives in Washington to support him. This says a lot about the state of the republican party. If I were you I would be looking at them and finding out why they didn't support smaller government legislation. Instead you blame the most conservative member of congress.
My perspective of Paul comes from working with his staff in 2009-2010 on issues of war and the Federal Reserve. Paul was one of my then-boss Alan Grayson’s key allies in Congress on these issues, though on most issues of course he and Paul were diametrically opposed. How Paul operated his office was different than most Republicans, and Democrats. An old Congressional hand once told me, and then drilled into my head, that every Congressional office is motivated by three overlapping forces – policy, politics, and procedure. And this is true as far as it goes. An obscure redistricting of two Democrats into one district that will take place in three years could be the motivating horse-trade in a decision about whether an important amendment makes it to the floor, or a possible opening of a highly coveted committee slot on Appropriations due to a retirement might cause a policy breach among leadership. Depending on committee rules, a Sub-Committee chairman might have to get permission from a ranking member or Committee Chairman to issue a subpoena, sometimes he might not, and sometimes he doesn’t even have to tell his political opposition about it. Congress is endlessly complex, because complexity can be a useful tool in wielding power without scrutiny. And every office has a different informal matrix, so you have to approach each of them differently.
Paul’s office was dedicated, first and foremost, to his political principles, and his work with his grassroots base reflects that. Politics and procedure simply didn’t matter to him. My main contact in Paul’s office even had his voicemail set up with special instructions for those calling about HR 1207, which was the number of the House bill to audit the Federal Reserve. But it wasn’t just the Fed audit – any competent liberal Democratic staffer in Congress can tell you that Paul will work with anyone who seeks his ends of rolling back American Empire and its reach into foreign countries, auditing the Federal Reserve, and stopping the drug war.
Paul is deeply conservative, of course, and there are reasons he believes in those end goals that have nothing to do with creating a more socially just and equitable society. But then, when considering questions about Ron Paul, you have to ask yourself whether you prefer a libertarian who will tell you upfront about his opposition to civil rights statutes, or authoritarian Democratic leaders who will expand healthcare to children and then aggressively enforce a racist war on drugs and shield multi-trillion dollar transactions from public scrutiny. I can see merits in both approaches, and of course, neither is ideal. Perhaps it’s worthy to argue that lives saved by presumed expanded health care coverage in 2013 are worth the lives lost in the drug war. It is potentially a tough calculation (depending on whether you think coverage will in fact expand in 2013). When I worked with Paul’s staff, they pursued our joint end goals with vigor and principle, and because of their work, we got to force central banking practices into a more public and democratic light.
Someone needs some meds.
The Paul-bots have this idea that Ron Paul is somehow different from everyone else in Washington. He isn't. He just mouths different sound bites. And they lap it up, pretty much the same way the left did with Obama.
The truth is Paul is totally unqualified to be president. He has a demonstated inability to work within the system, and his views are so far out of any kind of mainstream that he cannot build any consensus. His wookie-suiters take this as a badge of pride, that he hasn't "sold out". But the truth is that to be successful in getting your agenda through you have to work with people. And this he cannot do.
He has wasted 30 years and poorly served his constitutents.
Yeah it's sad really that he couldn't find enough true conservatives in Washington to support him. This says a lot about the state of the republican party. If I were you I would be looking at them and finding out why they didn't support smaller government legislation. Instead you blame the most conservative member of congress.
Ron Paul is no a conservative he's a libertarian with no concept of reality when it comes to foreign policy plus he and most of his followers are a bunch of wacked out annoying loons
Ron Paul is no a conservative he's a libertarian with no concept of reality when it comes to foreign policy plus he and most of his followers are a bunch of wacked out annoying loons
He's both conservative and libertarian. In some cases, those two value systems come into conflict, but interestingly, not in the areas you and Rabbi are concerned about.
Pauls views on foreign policy and the drug war are among his most conservative policies. Conservatives have long denounced 'nation-building' and entangling alliances. They have traditionally opposed the nanny-state and instead preferred individual responsibility. The drug war embraces nanny-state government and denies individual responsibility.
I think one of the reasons Paul generates so much passion is that he exposes the hypocrisy on both sides. He calls your bluff. The Republican party has become anything but conservative and Paul proves the point.
Ron Paul is no a conservative he's a libertarian with no concept of reality when it comes to foreign policy plus he and most of his followers are a bunch of wacked out annoying loons
He's both conservative and libertarian. In some cases, those two value systems come into conflict, but interestingly, not in the areas you and Rabbi are concerned about.
Pauls views on foreign policy and the drug war are among his most conservative policies. Conservatives have long denounced 'nation-building' and entangling alliances. They have traditionally opposed the nanny-state and instead preferred individual responsibility. The drug war embraces nanny-state government and denies individual responsibility.
I think one of the reasons Paul generates so much passion is that he exposes the hypocrisy on both sides. He calls your bluff. The Republican party has become anything but conservative and Paul proves the point.
You'll get nowhere on this. Today's "conservative" in the most broad sense of the word is just another version of a progressive.
They hide behind their social views on drugs, gay marriage, abortion, etc, and push for federal involvement in those issues based on "family values" while completely ignoring the lack of constitutional authority on any of them.
How much more progressive can you get than wanting to ignore the constitution in the name of personal opinions?
Somehow following the constitution has become "fringe". The tea party movement started out confronting this very problem before it was quickly swallowed up by the establishment.
Ron Paul is no a conservative he's a libertarian with no concept of reality when it comes to foreign policy plus he and most of his followers are a bunch of wacked out annoying loons
He's both conservative and libertarian. In some cases, those two value systems come into conflict, but interestingly, not in the areas you and Rabbi are concerned about.
Pauls views on foreign policy and the drug war are among his most conservative policies. Conservatives have long denounced 'nation-building' and entangling alliances. They have traditionally opposed the nanny-state and instead preferred individual responsibility. The drug war embraces nanny-state government and denies individual responsibility.
I think one of the reasons Paul generates so much passion is that he exposes the hypocrisy on both sides. He calls your bluff. The Republican party has become anything but conservative and Paul proves the point.
He's both conservative and libertarian. In some cases, those two value systems come into conflict, but interestingly, not in the areas you and Rabbi are concerned about.
Pauls views on foreign policy and the drug war are among his most conservative policies. Conservatives have long denounced 'nation-building' and entangling alliances. They have traditionally opposed the nanny-state and instead preferred individual responsibility. The drug war embraces nanny-state government and denies individual responsibility.
I think one of the reasons Paul generates so much passion is that he exposes the hypocrisy on both sides. He calls your bluff. The Republican party has become anything but conservative and Paul proves the point.
You'll get nowhere on this. Today's "conservative" in the most broad sense of the word is just another version of a progressive.
They hide behind their social views on drugs, gay marriage, abortion, etc, and push for federal involvement in those issues based on "family values" while completely ignoring the lack of constitutional authority on any of them.
How much more progressive can you get than wanting to ignore the constitution in the name of personal opinions?
Somehow following the constitution has become "fringe". The tea party movement started out confronting this very problem before it was quickly swallowed up by the establishment.
You idiot it was the out of control federal court who gave us mandated abortion thoughtout the entire country.
