I hope America will join me in supporting Ron Paul for President of the United States in 2012.
Whatever may come of this, I’m confident he will turn more people onto AE, and that sounds pretty good to me.
What do you think?
There should be an issues section on his website to explain his position to people who do not know him. He could quote or cite Mises Dailies which will lead people here.
In case his age is made into an issue, he could say what Tom Woods suggested: “Well, I’ve been an athlete my whole life, and I’m happy to say I continue to be in excellent physical condition. But perhaps in the wake of a couple younger presidents the country could benefit from the sobriety and temperament of an older man, and one with a 40-year track record of devotion to principle even when it meant sacrificing personal popularity.”
I turn 18 in 2012 and he has my vote. Good luck Dr. Paul!
Huck isn’t running, Romney is going to get eaten alive by romney care, TPaw is a flop, Santorum is a bigot, Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich are just unelectable, I suspect Herman Caine’s poll numbers will steadily shrink after the establishment created buzz dies down a bit - all good news for Ron.
If the media try to use his age against him I think he should tack this on to Woods’ response : “That’s what vice presidents are for”.
nice little article:
Ron Paul and the Love Revolution of 2012
My opinion is that there is no chance of him getting the Republican nomination, much less being voted president. Doesn’t matter. It’s more important to open peoples minds to “new” ideas and that’s what his campaign does.
Whatever chance Paul had at getting elected by Republicans vanished when he came out against the Osama bin Laden raid. Of course his position is more nuanced then that (Paul realizes that Osama’s action merited a police response, believes that if the military was going to apprehend him they should have arrested him, doesn’t believe the official story that he was armed [at least to my knowledge he doesn’t take the government’s word for it], and thinks that they should have used a Letter of Marque and Reprisal), but most Republican numbnuts will view this as him thinking Osama was a swell guy who didn’t deserve to die.
However, like Hankster just said, it’s more important that he get these ideas out there. People will be taken aback by his stance on bin Laden, but if they look into it, the libertarian theory doesn’t sound so nutty and new converts would have just been made. His role is educational and I’m fine with that. You can’t get people to stop believing in government while speaking from the pulpit of the most powerful government position in the world.
Does anyone know what state is having the first caucus or primary and what date it will be?
I’m not so sure about that…
Ron Paul, Hookers, and Heroin - ouch!
Lol its funny people see ron’s promotion of legalizing prostitution or heroin see it as Ron approving of shady drug dealers and pimps on the street. They simply don’t understand that those types wouldn’t exist if it was legal there’d be no way they’d be able to make any money. Its a sad thing, having prostitution illegal is why some young women who are in desperate times see it as a way to make money and end up rolling with a dangerous crowd in dangerous areas.
The type of things I’ve seen would make people cry, but if you live in a neighborhood where the most you know about prostitution is that its “bad” because of what you’ve seen on TV, those kind of people have a very difficult time understanding Ron’s position because they don’t have an emotional connection to seeing the human suffering in person. At least that’s what I think.
That is not an ‘ouch’ article at all…The guy is just repeating what others have already said about Ron Paul, and which Ron Paul has already responded to most of these criticisms.
This is great praise! The writer of the article looks like a buffoon, while Ron looks like a principled defender of Liberty.
It’s an “unintended” form of price control, really. You can have sex with a prostitute for $0 but not for a penny more. So the government has effectively outlawed only prostitutes charging above $0. But are you allowed to barter?
A movie and dinner with your date beforehand could end up to be much more expensive then the ongoing rate on the street. If the relationship does not end in marriage, I don’t see why the prohibitionists could not label that as an act of prostitution also.
And forget the “nice” girl that doesn’t put out for weeks or even months in a relationship. She is the most expensive prostitute of them all.
Well yes if you see the objective of being with a woman as just being able to ejaculate then I can see why that’d be the conclusion. Personally I’ve never had to buy a woman all sorts of gifts or wine and dine her in some pathetic attempt to get her to “put out”, I always thought that was a silly idea. .
Medved came off as an acerbic little twit, which is unsurprising considering he is in the sound-bite talk radio business. You could extend his logic of “business as a public phenomena” anywhere you want to. Conservative talk radio is downgrading the public discourse! I recommend government intervention. I’m not a Christian, so when I drive past churches with humorous catch phrases on their signs, I feel violated as Christian doctrine goes against my personal ethos and by having a sign, it is implicitly advertising to me! I recommend government intervention. A church sign on the side of the road is public game, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t drink beer, but what if my kid sees a Bud Light billboard on the highway and feels an urge to start becoming a raging alcoholic? It’s for the public safety!
Yeah, I think reductio ad absurdum is a good place to start on his little tirade. Comparing drugs and prostitution to miracle cures and dead cats as being sirloin steak was incredibly idiotic as well. Those are fraud. Nobody who would be in the business of marketing heroin would say, “yeah, this is going to make it shower rainbows and puppies.” It’s the consumer’s responsibility to know what they are putting in their bodies and it is the businesses’ responsibility not to intentionally mislead people about their product. These two examples miss the theoretical mark so badly it’s comical.
All in all though, this is hilarious to me. The conservative and libertarian movements are the two political ideologies that are skeptical of the State (or at least conservatism claims to be). So when libertarians go on and on about the bad side of conservative government intervention, conservatives feel like their market share is being attacked and resort to emotional tirades. Instead of the two sides being ideological allies, I think conservatives are more put off than liberals. Liberals share disdain for anybody pushing the free market, but generally keep their ire more directed towards conservatives because of their social beliefs. But conservatives view liberals as just flat-out anti-American whereas they are actually scared of libertarians. This generation of Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, O’Reilly, Medved, Prager, etc. can’t face the fact that libertarians are going to come to dominate Republican discourse when their generation loses ground.