In response to:

Ron Paul Says Goodbye

Fuzzy2 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 12:10 PM
Compromising with evil is always the easy path.
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 5:20 PM
I think we do Becca.

Why is it a problem Paul wanted "his people" elected? Isn't that what the TEA Party is doing?

I think honoring the Constitution becomes your duty when you take an oath to defend it. I certainly don't think abandoning your principles is a way to be honorable. Reagan caved on some things. Ron called him on it and stuck to his principles.

I like my definition of honor.
Becca in TX Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 5:01 PM
Then, Fuzzy, we obviously have different definitions of honor.
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 4:54 PM
the wall every day trying to convince the wayward republicans that had forsaken their oaths. I not only have no problem with his actions, I commend him for them.
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 4:53 PM
Becca - I don't even know what you are having a problem with. Paul was a republican when they were the party of limited government. The party abandoned it's principles so he went libertarian. No chance of getting elected as a libertarian so he came back as a republican in order to try to convince republicans to reform.

As for trying to get his own people in, who wouldn't? I don't see why this is even an issue. Do you think he was trying to get crony progressives in office?!!!

I don't read things and make decisions about the material based on the derogatory phrasing they use. I look at what happened and I give the man credit for sticking it out as the sole representative for the Constitution in congress. Beating his head against
Anonymous908 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 4:41 PM
Except unlike Gingrich, Ron Paul has not given voters reason to suspect he is a liar. Ron Paul is notoriously honest.
Anonymous908 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 4:38 PM
More people would not be hooked on narcotics. And government prohibition does not keep people from getting hooked on narcotics. You are looking at this the wrong way. The only thing government can do is penalize behavior. It will fine and imprison people for a medical/addiction problem. The exact wrong solution to the problem. Pull people out of the working economy and place them in a locked cell with criminals that are now dependent on tax payer money. Both strategically unwise for addicts and fiscally unwise for our country.

We don't imprison alcoholics, do we?
Becca in TX Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 4:19 PM
recruited one of his own to run against the sitting Republican, but fortunately, he wasn't very successful. He tried to get his people in a lot of the precinct chair positions, but wasn't very successful. Most of them lost. And I don't have to read about it-I've watched it. I haven't voted for that skunk since 1985.
Becca in TX Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 4:16 PM
Absolutely-RP wrote his open letter to Reagan and said he was leaving the GOP because of Reagan. Then he lost his next election when he was the Libertarian candidate. Then he came crawling back to the GOP because he wanted to run again and he wanted to win this time. So the party backed him and he got his seat back, but he's never shown any loyalty to anyone but himself. He now tries to claim to have been a Reagan backer when it suits him. He CLAIMS to be a Republican but he SNEAKILY recruits Libertarian candidates to run against sitting GOP officeholders in primaries. He was responsible for Debra Medina running against Perry in the last Texas primary until she flamed out because she's a truther. That wasn't the only race he .........
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 3:51 PM
??????? !!!!!!!

I don't have a cogent answer for that kind of thinking.
Best I just say nothing.

Oh who am I kidding. You are ok with politicians screwing the country, but not their wives?

Are you seriously saying you trust Mitt more than Paul?

Ok. Now I'm back to speechless.
Becca in TX Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 3:41 PM
Fuzzy-Many of the Ron Paul followers seem to think he is perfect and no one else is as perfect as he is. No, I expect politicians to be fallible because they are human. However, some failings are more of a problem for me than others. I didn't support Gingrich because of his serial adultery-I have trust issues with him-but if he'd won the nomination II'd have voted for him. I have problems supporting Ron Paul because of trust issues because of a pattern-not just one thing.
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 1:15 PM
Although I don't claim to be a libertarian, I did read the article.

I have to say, I was not surprised by any of it (other than the clear bias). No politician, or anyone, is going to be perfect. The author clearly thinks Paul was supposed to be an infallible saint. I don't suppose you want to talk about Romeny's or Gingrich's or Santorum's past?

Let's no go there. I don't need the nightmares.
Becca in TX Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 1:05 PM
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/13/the-hypocrisy-of-ron-paul

Fuzzy-How about the reality that libertarians don't want to face?
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 12:53 PM
I think so too Kuwull.

Reality is a place many are scared to go.
Kuwull Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 12:34 PM
Ross is lying anyway, Fuzz. Teh fed and their manipulation of currency and interst rates cause the "business" cycle and make recessions worse, not better. Only Keynesians believe their own BS.
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 12:25 PM
Sorry Ross - just trying to follow the law here. If you want to change the Constitution, change it. Don't call politicians who actually follow it bizarre.
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 12:22 PM
But I will say that federal government has vested interest in keeping tobacco on the streets. Another thing they can tax the stuffing out of. Can't pass up that opportunity.
Ross83 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 12:22 PM
and his off the charts bizarre views on the Federal Reserve board and a 19th century gold standard that would have created a regular series of depressions. In the past he was sympathetic to private militias and their brand of antisemitic paranoia. He disavowed these views and claimed he never wrote them only when he sought a national vote.
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 12:21 PM
No one that I know of would be happy to see more people hooked on narcotics.
Becca in TX Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 12:21 PM
Sloandog-I don't find his views on drugs to be extreme. He doesn't really want them legalized-he just wants it to be left to the states. Dr. Paul's belief in state's rights is one area where I agree with him. I think the federal government has usurped way too much power that should be in the states.
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 12:21 PM
Sure. But why do you trust politicians to run your life? Ron was simply stating the truth. It's not the federal government's job to control drugs. It's a state matter.
The Sloandog Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 12:13 PM
Yea,like legalizing heroin? Paul should have said a possibility of weed maybe. You have to have a little common sense.

Presidential candidate and long time Representative Ron Paul said goodbye yesterday on the House floor as he prepares to make his exit from Congress after 23 years. He explained his consistent views throughout the past two decades and berated Washington for refusing to change or make hard decisions when it comes to the future. 

As the father of what many characterize as the buoyant, bi-partisan New Liberty Movement, Paul shared “the plain truth” about Washington, America’s current national crisis and the greatest threats to the future.

Paul began by explaining his goals in 1976:...