Ron Paul ends campaign

I’d like to see Rand run. Ron is getting a little long in the tooth now.

Ron and Rand have a candidness and honesty that’s not found on either side of the political aisle. Not saying they’re infallible, but they are a breath of fresh air in a realm dominated by people who lie without so much as a hint of guilt about it.

“Do you see any prospects for Paul or his son or his libertarian philosophy in the future? In the Republican party?”

No — both parties will hate him for it.

I think what Paul is doing is basically bringing a voice to the libertarian side of the party and possibly strengthening the libertarian sentiments of many sitting on the fence. He provides a counter to big government Republicans. I see no downside in him continuing until a new libertarian voice emerges, even though he’ll never get the party nomination.

He hasn’t quit campaigning – he’s quit spending. While it may be the same thing for most campaigns, Paul has lots of grass roots support that is still active in the remaining states and there is not much campaigning left to do. So why spend more money?

I think there will be some type of blood-letting in the Republican party in the next year, especially in the aftermath of the election. If Romney loses, the accusations will fly from the insipid likes of Karl Rove that the Tea party’s insistence on principle has cost them the opportunity for power, while if he wins, Romney will express the official party line of a pragmatic conservatism that can safely ignore the libertarian wing of the party. On the other hand, the Tea party will accuse the Republican establishment of being so tired and ineffective that they couldn’t beat the weakest Democrat candidate since Walter Mondale. They will demand that the establishment and its allied punditocracy be removed from having any more control or influence over the direction of the party. All of which will be played out across local, state and national scales. Either way, it should make for an interesting 2013, like in Chinese curse interesting.

I do not see him nor his son ever winning the parties nomination but I certainly hope their voice will be heard in the coming years. I believe that if Romney loses, the dust will fly but when it settles there will be many who consider what the Pauls are saying and some sort of 3rd party effort will have much strength in the next election.

I fear that libertarian ideals will only gain mass popularity once the masses realize they are under a totalitarian thumb and then it will likely be too late to resolve peacefully.

One piece of evidence of the power of Paul’s ideas, if not his presidential campaign, is found in yesterday’s WSJ: an opinion piece from former candidate Herman Cain (We Need a Dollar as Good as Gold) calling for reform of the Federal Reserve and the halt to manipulation of the monetary system – a call for a sound dollar policy perhaps even a return to a gold standard. That this is even being entertained is due largely to thee tireless efforts of Rep. Paul to lay out the dangers of the present policy course and the problems of interest rate manipulation. A topic for which he was pilloried, laughed at, and given the obligatory eye rolls during the 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

Ron Paul’s time is passing. He is approaching 80 years of age, and will never again run a credible campaign for president. I think Rand Paul has a bright future. He is a better politician than his dad, and presents a more nuanced libertarianism than Ron does, particularly with respect to foreign policy, which is the issue that repeatedly sunk Ron. His pro-life views are better expressed as well. A right to life is fundamental to liberty, and Rand is a little clearer on that issue than Ron has been, in my opinion.

I am with Michael B. on this one. In a world of prostitutes, Ron Paul is a faithful man. People just cannot relate to him. He is like 6 std. deviations from the mean integrity, discipline and honesty in this country. Great man, really. Kind of reminds me of Coolidge.

The beliefs of Ron Paul will not be forgotten by the conservatives. His beliefs in legalized prostitution, drugs and other issues are repugnant to moral values, but most of all his prostitution stand is against God’s law.

Ron Paul willfully stayed in the race, and disrupted the campaign. Who knows about his son, … as the saying goes, “the apple does not fall to far from the tree” –

Grace, his stand on prostitution is not violation of God’s law and (just like last time) your comment gets both his position and God’s law wrong.

Ron Paul’s stance is that the prostitution should be left to the states:

“What CNN didn’t tell you in their report is that Ron Paul is personally very opposed to prostitution and drugs. According to a CBS story done on this topic in 2007, Paul has even said that if he was a legislator in Nevada, he would vote against legalizing prostitution. But he believes so strongly that our founders had it right when they did not grant the authority to the federal government to decide that he will defend states’ rights to the end, even when the media tries to distort his views for political purposes. He is clearly not a polished politician, since no slick politician would ever think of suggesting what Ron Paul has said — that the states should decide these matters. Ron Paul consistently speaks out for what the Constitution has delineated, however unpopular the Constitution has become in Washington.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/ron-paul-s-misunderstood-views-on-drugs-and-prostitution

And, God’s Law does not say “though shalt not commit adultery and thou shall establish a civil law against such sinful action.”

There is no biblical requirement that sinful conduct be made illegal in the civil realm. Relying on the civil gov’t to enforce God’s law is dangerous. Regardless of the state of the civil law, men who frequent prostitutes and women who willing sell sex will are sinning and need to repent and be forgiven. Even if its not a criminal act.

But we’ve gone over all this before and you’ve previously indicated no interesting in actually discussing it so why am I even typing this …

Joe

Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty

Q: You say that the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits, including marijuana. You feel the same about prostitution and gay marriage. Why should social conservatives vote for you?

A: They will, if they see that my defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice religion and say their prayers where they want. It’s an issue of protecting liberty across the board. We don’t have the First Amendment so we can talk about the weather. We have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. If you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. You can’t hurt other people, but yes, you have the right to do things that are very controversial. If not, then you’ll have a government that tells us what we can eat and drink and whatever.

Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in South Carolina , May 5, 2011

Change the subject from prostitution to the weather. Prostitution isn’t “liberty” it’s vile corruption spreads disease (STD’S) HIV/AIDS. There is nothing liberating about selling sex. STD’s and it’s spread is hurting other people. Prostitutes aren’t all women, there are men as well. Don’t we have enough HIV/AIDS? Do you want one of these brothels in your local mall, or next to your grocery store, or how about down the street from your church – – after all it’s all about “protecting liberty” –

Yes, we’ve had this conversation before, we don’t agree. Ron Paul’s stance on drugs and prostitution is rubbish. That’s why the guy never made it.

YOU WROTE: → “But we’ve gone over all this before and you’ve previously indicated no interesting in actually discussing it so why am I even typing this …”

I don’t know, why are you? You have no interest in the ramifications of a brothel, or maybe a dozen in your city? Why is that? Throw in drugs including heroin being sold legally, doesn’t that sound great, that’s all about “protecting liberty” –

Grace – In other venues I literally quote you verbatim and it has a wonderful satirical effect on people. Your positions are so obviously extreme and your distortions of Paul’s positions so plain that people actually resonate with Paulian position rather than rally to the state uber alles position you advance. Thanks!

Prostitution is already legal and paid for by the state. Nowadays, the prostitute picks the seducer of her choice and then sends the bill to the state.

SKPeterson @ 13

“Grace – In other venues I literally quote you verbatim and it has a wonderful satirical effect on people. Your positions are so obviously extreme and your distortions of Paul’s positions so plain that people actually resonate with Paulian position rather than rally to the state uber alles position you advance. Thanks!”

You’re welcome!

Uber alles ? – 😛

No one has to distort Ron Paul, he does that all by himself. The debates were a prime example.

I am aware that you, and others, who view Ron Paul as a veteran, banner waving sort, “protecting liberty” which includes legalized prostitution, and drugs – is important to the United States, extending “liberty” within the bounds of law, for activities that promote disease, death, and the destruction of families, that’s something the Libertarian’s can all be proud of – Mockery among that crowd is expected.

Ron Paul hogs the moment with his asinine, vacuous beliefs, and then attaching “protecting liberty” as the reason. Ron Paul is the ultimate caricature of a liberal, without a care in the world as to the end result of his beliefs, if they were to be made legal.

Grace –

Do you also contribute over at Gateway Pundit? Just wondering – Hoft has a way of machine-gunning any who disagree with his neo-conservative nonsense, and your rapid fire seems somewhat similar. Just saying . . .

Perhaps you ought to shoot on down here to our neck of the woods, which happens to be Ron Paul’s district, and talk to the man himself. Better that, than to go on repeating the overt silliness of the GOP and its allies, which are as every bit socialistic, and often marxist, as is the left, and publicly trashing Paul for things that are simply not so. What you have said sounds like a Rovian political take-down, which are only incidentally connected to facts.

At the very least it would prevent you from bearing false witness against the man.