Ron Paul's final speech in congress

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Perhaps one of the best people in congress is retiring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAHrzXvl3Q4

he would have kept us out of the war now developing in the middle east

edit- America didn't deserve him

Really? Somehow I doubt it. He loves the attention too much. But if so, good riddance to bad rubbish. One less racist, homophobe, anti-woman and single-minded ultra-conservative in US politics. Can never have too few of those.

Good riddance to fundie rubbish.

If I never see Ronald Paulson and his communitarian "It's not oppression if it's your state or county putting the screws to you" trash in the news ever again, it'll be too soon.

Hammartroll:
he would have kept us out of the war now developing in the middle east

And enabled to states to re-introduce racial segregation and sodomy laws. Fuck him. Fuck him and his state level tyranny agenda.

Well, to introduce some positive words into this...
I really liked one part of his speech in which he said, "Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it's wrong." I always find that people think that Patriotism, or the heavy liking of anything, means liking something no matter what it does. They think it means that it means that they should like it even if it has fault, even for it's faults, just because it is a certain thing. I always thought that this reasoning was utter garbage. If you really love something you'll point out it's flaws, because you want to see it improve.

I don't know much about Ron Paul, this is the first time I've heard him speak, but from what I've heard of his speech (24 minutes) he seems to have very good ideas.

GunsmithKitten:

Hammartroll:
he would have kept us out of the war now developing in the middle east

And enabled to states to re-introduce racial segregation and sodomy laws. Fuck him. Fuck him and his state level tyranny agenda.

what the hell is a sodomy law? Even if the government didn't like gays they have no right to know what you're doing in your house. Now if it's sodomy in a public place then that's simply indecent exposure.

edit- I just looked it up and it was a thing, still the supreme court has ruled against those laws so the states wouldn't be able to reinstate them anyway. (I looked it up before Seanchaidh posted his comment, but thank you anyway.)

and how can a state be tyrannical when they have to obey the constitution? You can always leave the state if they pass something you don't like, as opposed to when the fed passes a law and the whole country is subject to it, that's much more tyrannical.

Hammartroll:

GunsmithKitten:

Hammartroll:
he would have kept us out of the war now developing in the middle east

And enabled to states to re-introduce racial segregation and sodomy laws. Fuck him. Fuck him and his state level tyranny agenda.

what the hell is a sodomy law?

A sodomy law? Why, it's the subject of Lawrence v Texas (2003). That's right, 2003.

The decision that Lawrence overturned included this line, which in my opinion is quite accurate: "To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching." It would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching. And yet, it still should be so. Millennia of moral teaching were wrong.

Seanchaidh:

what the hell is a sodomy law?

A law which enables governments to punish people legally for private sexual behavior even with another adult.

Even if the government didn't like gays they have no right to know what you're doing in your house.

Agreed. Ron Paul, however, said that your STATE should be allowed to know what you're doing in your house and to punish you for it.

and how can a state be tyrannical when they have to obey the constitution?

Simple. It passes tyrannical laws.

You can always leave the state if they pass something you don't like

*SNORT* GOOOOD one.

Because they;'ll totally let me out of a state pen if I tell them "hey, I'm just going to move over next door where the thing that got me put in prison is actually legal."

as opposed to when the fed passes a law and the whole country is subject to it, that's much more tyrannical

That's Ron Paul thinking at it's finest; if your state lines you against the wall to be shot for violating a tyrannical law, you're not nearly as dead as if it were the feds lining you against the wall to be shot.

Makes me sick. Pretending to be a defender of liberty while in actuality, you're just opposed to federal authoritarianism. State authoritarianism is just fine even if it's the same laws. Please.

TKretts3:
Well, to introduce some positive words into this...
I really liked one part of his speech in which he said, "Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it's wrong." I always find that people think that Patriotism, or the heavy liking of anything, means liking something no matter what it does. They think it means that it means that they should like it even if it has fault, even for it's faults, just because it is a certain thing. I always thought that this reasoning was utter garbage. If you really love something you'll point out it's flaws, because you want to see it improve.

I don't know much about Ron Paul, this is the first time I've heard him speak, but from what I've heard of his speech (24 minutes) he seems to have very good ideas.

Follow his career closer. He's no libertarian, he's at best a communitarian; namely, he thinks that while the Fed should be restricted in how it tries to screw you over, if your state or county wants to completely ruin you, it's just fine.

He was wrong on almost everything and is almost exactly what this country needs to get past.

However he epitomizes honesty in politics and I respect him for that.

GunsmithKitten:

Seanchaidh:

what the hell is a sodomy law?

A law which enables governments to punish people legally for private sexual behavior even with another adult.

Even if the government didn't like gays they have no right to know what you're doing in your house.

Agreed. Ron Paul, however, said that your STATE should be allowed to know what you're doing in your house and to punish you for it.

and how can a state be tyrannical when they have to obey the constitution?

Simple. It passes tyrannical laws.

You can always leave the state if they pass something you don't like

*SNORT* GOOOOD one.

Because they;'ll totally let me out of a state pen if I tell them "hey, I'm just going to move over next door where the thing that got me put in prison is actually legal."

as opposed to when the fed passes a law and the whole country is subject to it, that's much more tyrannical

That's Ron Paul thinking at it's finest; if your state lines you against the wall to be shot for violating a tyrannical law, you're not nearly as dead as if it were the feds lining you against the wall to be shot.

Makes me sick. Pretending to be a defender of liberty while in actuality, you're just opposed to federal authoritarianism. State authoritarianism is just fine even if it's the same laws. Please.

You don't seem to understand how the three branches of government work. Every over exaggeration you just mentioned would be denied by the judicial branch, Ron Paul, if elected president, would have no power over it. I'm sure you must be used to the idea of an all powerful president in office after 4 years of Obama, but I'm sure Dr. Paul would respect the limits of his power much more than Obama does. Sodomy laws would not be brought back because the Supreme Court ruled against them, segregation laws would not be brought back because the Supreme Court ruled against them and no state government would have the right to know your personal business because that would violate your 4th amendment rights, which is something Ron Paul champions more than anyone else. Checks and balances prevents states from being totalitarian, which is why it's good that Dr. Paul wants to enforce those checks and balances, as opposed to Obama who has been tearing them down since he got into office. Since the states have less power than the federal government, it is much more likely that the fed would become totalitarian before the states.

Your idea that a state would shoot you if you tried to leave is so ridiculous that I think you're trolling me now. If you're someone who has a viewpoint that your state doesn't like I'm sure they'd be glad to let you leave, if they don't then they'll have a problem with the constitution.

The concept of liberty here is that some people want certain laws passed and some people want others, so if you and all your like minded friends moved to one state you would have a more likely chance of living in your preferred society. Not wanting states' rights shows the exact opposite of liberty, it shows that you want to force everyone at once to follow what you think is right. I don't know why Ron Paul is being perceived as anti social rights when the biggest steps towards social equality is being made by the states. More and more states are supporting stuff like gay marriage and legal marijuana; this is something that Ron Paul would fine with.

Now you may come back at me and say that Ron Paul is anti abortion, and it is true that he isn't a total libertarian because of this, but we have had anti abortion presidents in the past and no federal laws have been past regarding that. And besides, the way I see it is that anyone who brings up social issues when debating Ron Paul obviously has their priorities in the wrong place. If you would not vote for him simply because he doesn't perfectly fit your view of social policy then that means you care more about that than the people dying in the war. Even if it may seem like a crime that gay people can't get married (even though Ron Paul would support that on the state level), at least gay people aren't getting killed, like our soldiers are.

Too bad you missed this then, Hammartroll:

"The We the People Act is a bill introduced by Republican Congressman Ron Paul. Most recently in 2009 as H.R. 539, and back in 2004 as H.R. 3893. The bill intends:

To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

The bill intends to please both the God-fearing religious right and the big-government-fearing libertarian right by doing the following:

Prevents the Supreme Court and all federal courts from making decisions regarding:
State and local laws concerning free exercise an establishment of religion
the right of privacy including sexual practices, orientation or reproduction
the role of the Equal Protection clause on the right to marry.
Prevents the reliance on any federal court decision on any of the above topics.
Prevents the Supreme Court from "redefining marriage" using the Equal Protection clause
Allows the Congress or the President of the United States to impeach judges who breach the act. "

Oh my. Seems like that thing you said about the Supreme Court is wrong, huh?

Is he going? For good?

Can he please take his supporters with him wherever he's going?

Hammartroll:

You don't seem to understand how the three branches of government work. Every over exaggeration you just mentioned would be denied by the judicial branch, Ron Paul, if elected president, would have no power over it.

Wrongo, bongo. Just google Ron Paul's full statement on the constitutionalist of sodomy laws.

I'm sure you must be used to the idea of an all powerful president in office after 4 years of Obama,

Just the opposite. I'm the one among my circle of friends who has to remind everyone how the president actually has far less power than suspected.

Sodomy laws would not be brought back because the Supreme Court ruled against them

Decisions which can never be overturned, right? Is THAT why conservatives constantly fight to have Roe V Wade overturned? have they been wrong all these years?

Segregation laws would not be brought back because the Supreme Court ruled against them

Again, implying SCOTUS rulings can never be overturned.

and no state government would have the right to know your personal business because that would violate your 4th amendment rights

It took till 2000 for anyone to figure that out, apparently, and Ron Paul still hasn't caught on. Repeat; look up Ron Paul's stance on sodomy laws.

Your idea that a state would shoot you if you tried to leave is so ridiculous that I think [you're trolling me now. [/quote]

I never troll. And no, it's not, unless you can be immune from prosecution in a state just by moving to another one.

I don't know why Ron Paul is being perceived as anti social rights when the biggest steps towards social equality is being made by the states.

Nto a single state allowed de-segregation when it was attempted to be overturned at a local level. NOT. ONE.

More and more states are supporting stuff like gay marriage and legal marijuana; this is something that Ron Paul would fine with.

And besides, the way I see it is that anyone who brings up social issues when debating Ron Paul obviously has their priorities in the wrong place.

Policies on gays and lesbians affect me directly, as I AM a lesbian.

Even if it may seem like a crime that gay people can't get married (even though Ron Paul would support that on the state level)

Which means nothing when he would also would support me being imprisoned for being gay.

As for the military, forgive me if I'm not terribly sympathetic to a primarily fundamentalist Christian right wing institution that openly disdains civilians in the first place.

Shock and Awe:
He was wrong on almost everything and is almost exactly what this country needs to get past.

However he epitomizes honesty in politics and I respect him for that.

He was as dishonest as they come, it is the reason he has as much support as he does, particularly among college students.

Ron Paul talking to people for gay marriage - I believe the Government should not tell you who can and cannot get married.

Ron Paul talking to people against gay marriage - I believe it is the right of the State to ban gay marriage

Ron Paul talking about abortion to pro-choice - I believe the Government should not be telling you what you can and cannot do with your body

Ron Paul talking about abortion to pro-life - I believe it is the right of the State to ban abortion.

You get the point, he frames his wording around who his audience is. It is why he has followers who believe he supports their right to choose, or supports legalization of pot, or supports gay marriage and so on. He deliberately misleads people to get their support.

I can agree with many of his foreign policy stances, but domestic, social, and economic policies he had would be outdated for the 20th century let alone the 21st.

I liked that guy.

Not because of anything in particular he did, but because both democrats and republicans hate the shit out of him. Would have been nice to shake things up a little, though it would have most likely just been a small bump in the road for them.

Good, although I fear his supporters will simply flock to his son, who already made a very negative name for himself in my view. I actually sort of bought into the hype for Ron Paul for a little while before properly looking into him more closely on the issues. Where I thought I disagreed with him 50% of the time (economics), it turns out I disagree with him on almost anything, including social issues. He's much more restrictive, anti-freedom than he likes to portray himself.

well, at least one evil is out.

So sad, if he'd been president the end of capitalism would have come so much sooner.

Oh good.

The guy was a joke, and not in a particularly amusing way.

TheBelgianGuy:
Too bad you missed this then, Hammartroll:

"The We the People Act is a bill introduced by Republican Congressman Ron Paul. Most recently in 2009 as H.R. 539, and back in 2004 as H.R. 3893. The bill intends:

To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

The bill intends to please both the God-fearing religious right and the big-government-fearing libertarian right by doing the following:

Prevents the Supreme Court and all federal courts from making decisions regarding:
State and local laws concerning free exercise an establishment of religion
the right of privacy including sexual practices, orientation or reproduction
the role of the Equal Protection clause on the right to marry.
Prevents the reliance on any federal court decision on any of the above topics.
Prevents the Supreme Court from "redefining marriage" using the Equal Protection clause
Allows the Congress or the President of the United States to impeach judges who breach the act. "

Oh my. Seems like that thing you said about the Supreme Court is wrong, huh?

well... fuck

I liked Gary Johnson more anyway

Thank god.

Can we please move on from the biggest lie in modern politics? There's nothing worse than a man who is marketed on honestly as his ONLY quality who is in reality a gay hating women hating racist pig who just happens to know how to phrase it in just the right deceptive matter.

Good. One less blatant populist. I'm pretty sure most of his supporters only supported him because he supported the legalisation of weed (I wrote support too many times, didn't I?), even though he'd just leave it up to the states making him no different from Obama on that issue.

So in other words he stopped being a hypocrite?

Overusedname:
in reality a gay hating women hating racist pig

Ok let me make clear im a total ignorant and am very much out of my depth, but would like some elaboration on the woman hating part if someone can indulge me.

My more politically minded friends have been championing ron paul to me for ages, and besides it being mostly female friends that bigged up ron paul, wasnt he also a gynecologist at a time when that field was still in its infancy? Hard to believe a guy with that background can be a litteral woman hater.

Disclaimer: Not from USA/am a total ignorant on the topic, do not mean any offense.

And yeh my aforementioned friends have been more or less heartbroken by his leaving.

Frankster:
Ok let me make clear im a total ignorant and am very much out of my depth, but would like some elaboration on the woman hating part if someone can indulge me.

Ron Paul is a typical reactionary who opposes any form of advancement in society, including women's rights. Ron Paul also wants to ban abortion, thus making him opposed to women's human and civil rights. Just how reactionary? Ron Paul is among the last open racists, has defended neonazi extremists, and thinks that, I quote, "95% if not all blacks are criminals".

Plus that of course he describes himself as a libertarian. Libertarians as a rule endorse the, rather strange, idea, that freedom means the freedom to oppress others. Which in context means rich Christian men oppressing anyone not showing those previous 3 characteristics. Not only is this already found in the ideas of various libertarians who are hardcore anti-women, such as Gary Johson who wants to ban contraceptives by making them impossible to afford, but also Paul's record is just a stereotypical conservative religious nutjob. There's no indication at all of him supporting anything progressive in any way, despite of what Paulites might claim.

And about Paulites, what I see about those is that they're ussually fairly naive kids who haven't bothered to check on what Paul actually wants, but fall for his populism. Like how he cries that pot should be legally to get him the vote of potheads and drug criminals, which most American politicians don't appeal to.

Blablahb:
snip

Thanks for the response, ill be asking my friends some questions about what you said and get their view and hopefully will be less dumb by the end of it.

Ill note that when they praise ron paul its almost always about his foreign policy and economic ideas rather then internal policy (might have to do with my friends being european which skewers their view significantly compared to people living in usa), so will definitly probe them on that.

They aint naive kids or potheads though :P Projecting or making assertions about the side you disagree with aint gonna convince me in this regard.

And the "changing his tune to get populist vote" is in contrast to the perceived image i have of RP being apparently stubborn in his beliefs and not changing his tune over the years.
I even remember watching a clip that showed presidential candidates being grilled by a chat host who went over each one about how much they all flipflopped and were hypocrites and when he came to ron paul he was like: "actually mr ron in your case you havent changed much, i havent got anything bad to say about you" or something to that effect.
So this is definitly something i need to investigate further aswell. Anyways again thanks for response, atm im in sponger mode in regards to this topic and trying to absorb as many views as i can so i can ask the right questions ^^

Frankster:

Blablahb:
snip

Thanks for the response, ill be asking my friends some questions about what you said and get their view and hopefully will be less dumb by the end of it.

Ill note that when they praise ron paul its almost always about his foreign policy and economic ideas rather then internal policy (might have to do with my friends being european which skewers their view significantly compared to people living in usa), so will definitly probe them on that.

They aint naive kids or potheads though :P Projecting or making assertions about the side you disagree with aint gonna convince me in this regard.

And the "changing his tune to get populist vote" is in contrast to the perceived image i have of RP being apparently stubborn in his beliefs and not changing his tune over the years.
I even remember watching a clip that showed presidential candidates being grilled by a chat host who went over each one about how much they all flipflopped and were hypocrites and when he came to ron paul he was like: "actually mr ron in your case you havent changed much, i havent got anything bad to say about you" or something to that effect.
So this is definitly something i need to investigate further aswell. Anyways again thanks for response, atm im in sponger mode in regards to this topic and trying to absorb as many views as i can so i can ask the right questions ^^

That's because he technically doesn't change his stance, he just changes how he says things.

For example:

"I believe a State has the right to decide whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry." <-- Neutral stance

"I believe it's the State's right to decide to legalize gay marriage." <-- Pro gay marriage slant

"I believe it's the State's right to decide to ban gay marriage." <-- Anti gay marriage slant

He's said all three before. They all technically mean the same thing, that the matter of gay marriage is a State's rights issue.

He's slipperier than a hag fish, is Ron Paul.

Let's hope he continues to do something. It's always sad to lose a good comic.

So what. The country is very different in views, and the states varied. He also supports the constitution from which people keep trying to limit like free speech.

McMarbles:
Is he going? For good?

Can he please take his supporters with him wherever he's going?

Please. This will be the only thing I ask for from you Santa.

In all seriousness though, good riddance. One less fucking bigot in congress.

Gergar12:
So what. The country is very different in views, and the states varied. He also supports the constitution from which people keep trying to limit like free speech.

I've really not seen that happen in the US. If the US has a problem, it's freedom of speech being taken to ridiculous lengths that it was never intended to cover. Like for instance the WBC ruining funerals. Freedom of speech has no article that states "Therefore all citizens, if they are zealous Christian bigots, have the right to ruin someone's funeral". So despite it clearly not falling under free speech, it's allowed, and many people are being terrorised by that group under the cover of free speech.

Then again, Ron Paul said stuff that could've earned him a fine or something if there were sensible common sense restrictions on speech. Especially his racist comments and the anti-abortion rubbish were deeply offensive and grieving, so it makes sense for him to advocate Christian special privieleges in unlimited freedom of (hate)speech.

wintercoat:
snip

Cheers for that very concise example, starting to seem like if something is too good to be true then its because maybe it is :( Guess there really are no "good" politicians.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here