Was Ron Paul's presidential campaign a success?

[k-onmmunist]

Where does Ron Paul break with Libertarians?  Honest question.

Abortion
Public Prayer
Gay Marriage
Any social issue pretty much


Paul would've made a great republican if it weren't for his Anti-Israel stances...

After Mitt lost in 2008, I seriously considered Paul as a choice, but his foreign policy stances are too horrible to stand.

Dude... your politics suck.

[Phony Moderate]

No.

Ron Paul is noth more than a Christian Fascist. He voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, supports DADT and the DOMA, voted for a ban on Gay Adoptions in DC, authored the Sanctity of Life Act (which dictates each state's right to choose when human life begins, i thought he was for state's right?).

He also met up with Don Black, the former leader (or whatever they call it) of the KKK, and they had a couple of photos taken together. He also wrote outrageous things about black people, homosexuals, etc in several of his newsletters. He claims he didn't write them, but if he didn't he should have done something after the first outrageous comments were written.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What an interesting question.

It kind of acknowledges that Paul's presidential campaign was never about actually winning the presidency, in which case, and considering the fact that he ended up three slots behind last place, then you'd have to agree...his presidential campaign was a success, insofar as he didn't win.

The scary thing about Paul is that you listen to him, and you begin to realize that he makes sense on several levels, which makes you take a serious look at the guy, and the you just say "that guy is just ing weird looking! He looks crazy! I can't vote for him!"

[Brandon H]

Hamilton understands libertarianism better than some self proclaimed libertarians and trolls pretending to be libertarians.

HR 1207 (the bill to audit the fed) now has two thirds of the house as co-sponsors. S 604 has something like 25 co-sponsors. No one would have imagined that happening in 2006. That might be enough right there to consider it successful.

[rebeltarian]

I support abortion on the basis of the fundamental libertarian principle of self-ownership: I own my body; hence I am free to dispose of it as I will. There is no legitimate grounding in libertarian philosophy for opposing the right to choose. Can someone 'compromise' on it? Certainly. And that person is not a libertarian.

I love it when the average internet joe tries to zealously define libertarianism in his eyes and claim that everyone else is wrong and not a libertarian.

 Try this: one of the most agreed upon principles of libertarianism is that you do not bring about pre-emptive violence.  So, by killing a person when he/she is still inside of the mother's womb, you are commiting an aggresive act of interventionist violence to terminate a life.  That personally doesn't sound like a very libertarian idea to me, but I'll digress.

[rebeltarian]

Where does Ron Paul break with Libertarians?  Honest question.

Abortion
Public Prayer
Gay Marriage
Any social issue pretty much


Paul would've made a great republican if it weren't for his Anti-Israel stances...

After Mitt lost in 2008, I seriously considered Paul as a choice, but his foreign policy stances are too horrible to stand.

Explain to me why Ron Paul is "anti-Israel".  The last time I checked, he wanted America to cut off aid to both Israel and it's Arab opponents and become neutral on the conflict.  Switzerland is neutral to all nations and conflicts, does that make the Swiss "anti-World"?

[Phony Moderate]

I support abortion on the basis of the fundamental libertarian principle of self-ownership: I own my body; hence I am free to dispose of it as I will. There is no legitimate grounding in libertarian philosophy for opposing the right to choose. Can someone 'compromise' on it? Certainly. And that person is not a libertarian.

I love it when the average internet joe tries to zealously define libertarianism in his eyes and claim that everyone else is wrong and not a libertarian.

 Try this: one of the most agreed upon principles of libertarianism is that you do not bring about pre-emptive violence.  So, by killing a person when he/she is still inside of the mother's womb, you are commiting an aggresive act of interventionist violence to terminate a life.  That personally doesn't sound like a very libertarian idea to me, but I'll digress.

And you have to intervene to stop the mother from killing the "person". It isn't a person anyway. Abortion is no different from smashing an egg.

[rebeltarian]

It's not intervention, it's defense. 

When exactly does "it" become a person?  Does it magically become a person when it pops out of the mother's womb?  An unborn has a heartbeat and brain activity within weeks after conception and by the time of delivery in the hospital room, it is a complete human package. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Absolutely. The man has created a legitimate political movement (and perhaps soon force) out of an ideology that was barely even discussed before. Considering he knew he was never actually going to be elected President, I think the result that occurred was the best possible option he could've hoped for.

And considering how much he's talked about here, I'd say yes as well.

[Phony Moderate]

So, when exactly does "it" become a person?  Does it magically become a person when it pops out of the mother's womb?  An unborn has a heartbeat and brain activity within weeks after conception and by the time of delivery in the hospital room, it is a complete human package. 

Which is useless to society.

I'd rather that eating eggs was banned than abortion, because the last time i checked, the chicken doesn't start wars, and pollute the world. Now you are probably going to say something like " the chicken doesn't do anything for society either". Well what does the human do for society? All the human does is fight amongst other members of it's species, and seek to create a better life for it's species.

Liberal/Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Anti-Christ/Anti-God/Anti-Religion rant over.

[rebeltarian]

Ah, you socialists really do wish the human race would cease to exist, don't you?  Humans are human, sometimes they choose right, sometimes they choose wrong.  Why always see the glass half empty?  Just curious, did you know that Dennis Kucinich, despite now being effectively pro-choice, is one of the most anti-abortion politicians in America?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Abortion is no different from smashing an egg.

Untrue - the eggs we eat aren't fertilised.

[Phony Moderate]

Ah, you socialists really do wish the human race would cease to exist, don't you?  Humans are human, sometimes they choose right, sometimes they choose wrong.  Why always see the glass half empty?  Just curious, did you know that Dennis Kucinich, despite now being effectively pro-choice, is one of the most anti-abortion politicians in America?

Abortion is not the most important issue to me, and the fact that he's pro-choice now makes him good enough for me.

[perdedor]

Considering that he is still universally recognized as nutjob among non-libertarians, I would say no. Libertarians need to get past the delusion that the majority of the American public shares their ideology.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Considering that he is still universally recognized as nutjob among non-libertarians, I would say no. Libertarians need to get past the delusion that the majority of the American public shares their ideology.

No he's not. Only among establishment partisans is he derided as a "nutjob." Everyone else has recognized that he was exactly right about the economy.

[perdedor]

Considering that he is still universally recognized as nutjob among non-libertarians, I would say no. Libertarians need to get past the delusion that the majority of the American public shares their ideology.

No he's not. Only among establishment partisans is he derided as a "nutjob." Everyone else has recognized that he was exactly right about the economy.

Oh, Libertas... To paraphrase a wiser man than myself; "It isn't what you don't know that frightens me, it's what you know for sure that just isn't so". Where is this silent majority of Paulites? Are they are lurking in the seedy underground of the interwebz preparing the Gary Johnson Revolution (lol)?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Considering that he is still universally recognized as nutjob among non-libertarians, I would say no. Libertarians need to get past the delusion that the majority of the American public shares their ideology.

No he's not. Only among establishment partisans is he derided as a "nutjob." Everyone else has recognized that he was exactly right about the economy.

Oh, Libertas... To paraphrase a wiser man than myself; "It isn't what you don't know that frightens me, it's what you know for sure that just isn't so". Where is this silent majority of Paulites? Are they are lurking in the seedy underground of the interwebz preparing the Gary Johnson Revolution (lol)?

Uh, no.

[perdedor]

Considering that he is still universally recognized as nutjob among non-libertarians, I would say no. Libertarians need to get past the delusion that the majority of the American public shares their ideology.

No he's not. Only among establishment partisans is he derided as a "nutjob." Everyone else has recognized that he was exactly right about the economy.

Oh, Libertas... To paraphrase a wiser man than myself; "It isn't what you don't know that frightens me, it's what you know for sure that just isn't so". Where is this silent majority of Paulites? Are they are lurking in the seedy underground of the interwebz preparing the Gary Johnson Revolution (lol)?

Uh, no.

Then enlighten me, Libertas; Where is this 'everybody else' you speak of? Is it the tea parties? If so, then I would certainly say that Paul accomplished nothing (outside of encouraging a new outlet for fascism, which is ironic.)

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Considering that he is still universally recognized as nutjob among non-libertarians, I would say no. Libertarians need to get past the delusion that the majority of the American public shares their ideology.

No he's not. Only among establishment partisans is he derided as a "nutjob." Everyone else has recognized that he was exactly right about the economy.

Oh, Libertas... To paraphrase a wiser man than myself; "It isn't what you don't know that frightens me, it's what you know for sure that just isn't so". Where is this silent majority of Paulites? Are they are lurking in the seedy underground of the interwebz preparing the Gary Johnson Revolution (lol)?

Uh, no.

Then enlighten me, Libertas; Where is this 'everybody else' you speak of? Is it the tea parties? If so, then I would certainly say that Paul accomplished nothing (outside of encouraging a new outlet for fascism, which is ironic.)

The tea parties which Paul inspired were not an outlet for "fascism" and that's a rather ridiculous claim to make.

[perdedor]

Considering that he is still universally recognized as nutjob among non-libertarians, I would say no. Libertarians need to get past the delusion that the majority of the American public shares their ideology.

No he's not. Only among establishment partisans is he derided as a "nutjob." Everyone else has recognized that he was exactly right about the economy.

Oh, Libertas... To paraphrase a wiser man than myself; "It isn't what you don't know that frightens me, it's what you know for sure that just isn't so". Where is this silent majority of Paulites? Are they are lurking in the seedy underground of the interwebz preparing the Gary Johnson Revolution (lol)?

Uh, no.

Then enlighten me, Libertas; Where is this 'everybody else' you speak of? Is it the tea parties? If so, then I would certainly say that Paul accomplished nothing (outside of encouraging a new outlet for fascism, which is ironic.)

The tea parties which Paul inspired were not an outlet for "fascism" and that's a rather ridiculous claim to make.

Is it? The imagery is there, the 'common enemy' is there, the nationalism is there, the xenophobia, the fear mongering, so on and so forth.

Wasn't Sarah Palin the keynote speaker of the tea party convention? That alone doesn't exactly play to the tea party's 'freedom' credentials.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Considering that he is still universally recognized as nutjob among non-libertarians, I would say no. Libertarians need to get past the delusion that the majority of the American public shares their ideology.

No he's not. Only among establishment partisans is he derided as a "nutjob." Everyone else has recognized that he was exactly right about the economy.

Oh, Libertas... To paraphrase a wiser man than myself; "It isn't what you don't know that frightens me, it's what you know for sure that just isn't so". Where is this silent majority of Paulites? Are they are lurking in the seedy underground of the interwebz preparing the Gary Johnson Revolution (lol)?

Uh, no.

Then enlighten me, Libertas; Where is this 'everybody else' you speak of? Is it the tea parties? If so, then I would certainly say that Paul accomplished nothing (outside of encouraging a new outlet for fascism, which is ironic.)

The tea parties which Paul inspired were not an outlet for "fascism" and that's a rather ridiculous claim to make.

Is it? The imagery is there, the 'common enemy' is there, the nationalism is there, the xenophobia, the fear mongering, so on and so forth.

Wasn't Sarah Palin the keynote speaker of the tea party convention? That alone doesn't exactly play to the tea party's 'freedom' credentials.

A) There was and is no monolithic "tea party convention".

B) The Barack Obama movement was much closer to fascism than the tea parties are, even today.

[perdedor]

Considering that he is still universally recognized as nutjob among non-libertarians, I would say no. Libertarians need to get past the delusion that the majority of the American public shares their ideology.

No he's not. Only among establishment partisans is he derided as a "nutjob." Everyone else has recognized that he was exactly right about the economy.

Oh, Libertas... To paraphrase a wiser man than myself; "It isn't what you don't know that frightens me, it's what you know for sure that just isn't so". Where is this silent majority of Paulites? Are they are lurking in the seedy underground of the interwebz preparing the Gary Johnson Revolution (lol)?

Uh, no.

Then enlighten me, Libertas; Where is this 'everybody else' you speak of? Is it the tea parties? If so, then I would certainly say that Paul accomplished nothing (outside of encouraging a new outlet for fascism, which is ironic.)

The tea parties which Paul inspired were not an outlet for "fascism" and that's a rather ridiculous claim to make.

Is it? The imagery is there, the 'common enemy' is there, the nationalism is there, the xenophobia, the fear mongering, so on and so forth.

Wasn't Sarah Palin the keynote speaker of the tea party convention? That alone doesn't exactly play to the tea party's 'freedom' credentials.

A) There was and is no monolithic "tea party convention".

B) The Barack Obama movement was much closer to fascism than the tea parties are, even today.

A) http://www.nationalteapartyconvention.com/home.aspx ....curious.

B) There are more aspects to fascism than a present cult of personality, there is an ideology behind it that is far more prevalent in the tea party movement.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No - his legitimate movement was hijacked by crazies.

[Conservative frontier]

Yes.

[Torie]

No, in the sense that none of his ideas will ever be enacted into law, because they are nutter.