Tuesday, February 7th, 2012
94

With Ron Paul, Fighting for Minnesota

They are young—so young. Impossibly young for attendees of a political rally that does not happen on a street. The slowest moving of the thousand or so streaming into the Minneapolis Convention end up standing for Ron Paul's address on the eve of the Minnesota caucuses. But they're young enough to handle it.

A Ron Paul rally is an experience every cynical, bedraggled, politics-reporting cur should take in at least once in a career. Plus, in the GOP 2012 field, Ron Paul supporters easily hold the title of most bangable.

The event was set to begin at 7:00 p.m. The first "End the Fed!" chant started at 7:03 p.m.

When Gingrich, Santorum and Romney voters are all dead of old age, and when the current Tea Party's core has moved to a senility where the only bailout that concerns them is the one in their pants, Ron Paul supporters will still be, like, 43. The Tea Party desperately needs to recruit younger, fresher members. This realization was certainly why the first pre-Paul speaker is Walter Hudson, chair of Minnesota's North Star Tea Party Patriots.

The current mainstream of self-identifying Tea Partiers loathes Ron Paul because he's the guy who shows up with Jack Daniels to a party of 12-year-olds who are pretending to be drunk on O'Doul's. Paul's very presence makes a mockery of every Sarah Palin Tea Party "liberty" t-shirt, every Eric Cantor "freedom" bumper sticker and every bedazzled bald eagle. Paul's events expose the mainstream Tea Party for the fundamentally Christian conservative organization it really is—the kind of "party of the Constitution" that nonetheless wants to legislate bedrooms and can pretzel its reasoning into supporting the likes of Gingrich and Santorum, who are exactly those career political tumors of the D.C. system that the movement claims to despise.

Not that the religious right was absent at Paul's event. One man discreetly passed out business cards advertising "Live Christian Talk Radio" from the Liberty Broadcasting Network: "Can you handle the truth?"

But Paul didn't evoke the Lord at any time during the address. He didn't once mention "faith." Paul's rally speeches are unique not in what they mention, but in what they skip.

A Ron Paul for President rally is unlike rallies for other GOP presidential hopefuls in that, surprisingly, it is about the candidate himself. Bachmann. Gingrich. Those attending their rallies are often anti-Obama, not pro-candidate. Mitt Romney's very existence is a testament to this. There is almost no such thing as a truly pro-Romney conservative. Romney's the Rumsfeld candidate: you go to the election with the candidate you have, not the candidate you might want or wish to have at a later time.

Paul's full address only mentioned Obama's name once. Once! And that was a passing slam of "Obamacare" as a big government program. One breath later and Paul was back to landing blows on "both parties" and how "we need to clean house."

"It all comes down to the next 24 hours!" said Ron Paul's Minnesota chair, just before Paul came on. The campaign knows Minnesota's February 7th caucus could be its biggest day ever. Paul is out-fundraising the other candidates in Minnesota, and the Texas congressman must be giddy that polling during Nevada's Saturday primary demonstrated that those looking for the "conservative alternative" to Romney had passed over Santorum and Gingrich for Paul. What's more, Minnesota's wear-your-neighbors-down caucus system is the perfect composter for the vocal vim and vigor of Paul's supporters.

This is certainly why Paul's state chair passed up idealist talk of liberty or the Constitution in favor for a simple point a first-grader could understand. She even rammed it home by talking about "my favorite Youtube," which, it turns out, is Pacino's "inch by inch" speech from Any Given Sunday. (A damn good speech.) The crowd was charged.

Her only message was to make all present promise to, immediately after leaving, call one other person and convince that person to caucus tomorrow. Just one. Call one person, make him or her go with you. Got that, stupid? One person. One person to the caucus. All cheered. I bet every one of the thousand or so were determined to make that call.

I would have expected to see more doctor puns at a Ron Paul event.

There are 19 medical doctors in Congress (three senators); that's an increase from 15 in 2009. (Trivia: Five doctors were among the 56 people who signed the Declaration of Independence.)

Five of the 19 are Obstetrician-Gynecologists, and two of them are from Texas. They are Tom Coburn (R-OK), Phil Gingrey (R-GA) Michael Burgess (R-TX), Phil Roe (R-TN), and, of course, Dr. Paul (R-Atlas Shrugged). For some reason, Republican obstetricians abound. (My daughter was delivered by Grand Forks, North Dakota mayor and Ob-Gyn, Mike Brown—a Republican.) In fact, all but one of the 19 doctors in Congress are Republicans. The lone Democrat is Jim McDermott (D-WA)—and of all of the Congressional medical professionals, McDermott is the only psychiatrist.

One Ob-Gyn offered me a theory on this breakdown, in two parts. First, doctors are really just small businesspeople in a heavily regulated industry. As such, they are especially vulnerable to government meddling and the kind of mandates born of drop-ceilinged conference rooms, campaign donations and ideology, not blood-on-the-Danskos experience. This small-business ideology also ties into a hate for taxes. While most doctors make a good living and some make a wildly good living, often doctors make that income sweet-spot that's high enough to attract the worst rates, but not so high as to allow for fuck-you money. Guess who often makes just over that $250,000-a-year mark Democrats like to use in talk of raising taxes on the wealthy? Your doctor.

Second, the Ob-Gyn suspects that the specialty—unlike, say, orthopedic surgery—is most exposed to the vile parts of the nation's entrenched social welfare system, where many Randians see the proverbial bootstraps sold for cash to buy drugs. It's hard, the doctor argues, to not get just a little bit Ayn-Randy when facing a spirit-crushing daily grind of the tragedy that happens when pregnancy meets deep poverty. The doctor added that these are the Ob-Gyns that see abortion used repeatedly as a birth control measure—and then become activists about it.

Paul is very anti-abortion. But as an Ob-Gyn he's also characteristically "in limbo" about it. Grilled about performing abortions even in the case of rape, Paul's answer to Piers Morgan was one many Ob-Gyns who work without the luxury of it being a theoretical argument would agree with: "It is absolutely in limbo. Because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards… there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it…. It's a little bit different story."

But Paul's pro-life bona fides were not on display at the rally. Unlike the t-shirts and bumpers at many other conservative candidate events, there were no "If You're Pregnant, It's a Baby," "Abortion: Be Glad Your Parents Chose Differently," "Choose life. Your Mother Did," or "Kill the Rapist, Not the Baby."

Then there is tort reform. Outside abortion, nothing makes a physician want to go into politics more than having been needlessly sued two, three or ten times.

Here are the things, in order from least to most, that got the loudest boos during a Ron Paul rally:

4) Rick Perry
3) The National Defense Authorization Act
2) The "War on Drugs"
1) The Patriot Act

In a way, the worst enemy of a Ron Paul rally is Ron Paul. Paul had been speaking for somewhere around a half hour and the crowd was whipped into a Liberty lather, all ready to rush out into the unbelievably warm Minneapolis winter night and do exactly what Paul needs more than anything: GOTV (Get Out The Vote).

Instead, Grampa Ron continued talking for another 25 minutes or so. It's like a TED talk about the Constitution, after which a person just kind of wants to go watch some goddamn "Jersey Shore," because, Jesus, can you stop lecturing for, like, ten minutes? That Paul isn't the GOP field's multiple-divorcée is maybe the most surprising story of the 2012 primary. Maybe Mrs. Paul is deaf. [Editor's Note: Carol Wells Paul, Ron Paul's wife since 1957, is not deaf.]

So all of the momentum the event had going for the first half hour was then sponged up by Paul droning on about 9/11, the conspiracy of the Iraq War, SOPA and every other recent affront to Constitutional freedom and personal liberty.

Maybe Ron Paul just isn't used to being in a position to actually win a state. Maybe the Congressman's message has sat under the heat-lamp for so long even he doesn't really believe it's going anywhere in his lifetime.

Still, at the end, the crowd went bonkers again. Paul waved a bit but scurried offstage immediately. For an indie rock act determined to maintain an aura of anti-fame cool, this might be a good approach. But this is politics, where painfully begging adoration and support is pretty much the name of the game.

On his way off stage, Paul was glitter-bombed by a man desperate to prove that even the politically progressive can be miserably uninformed assholes.

Leaving the convention center was a little like leaving a mall movie theatre after the stores were all closed.

Young men and women signed clipboards, took photos together and grabbed complimentary copies of the Ron Paul Family Cookbook. It's a merry group that, despite Paul's final desperate attempts to rob them of their crazed energy, just might caucus the Congressman into the national conversation today. From down the hall, one of a foursome yelled, "Come on, let's go spread some liberty."



Abe Sauer is the author of the book How to be: North Dakota. He is on Twitter. Email him at abesauer @ gmail.com.

94 Comments / Post A Comment

America needs a doctor: Dr. Ken Jeong.

"It's hard, the doctor argues, to not get just a little bit Ayn-Randy when facing a spirit-crushing daily grind of the tragedy that happens when pregnancy meets deep poverty. The doctor added that these are the Ob-Gyns that see abortion used repeatedly as a birth control measure—and then become activists about it."

Getting "Ayn Randy" in this context apparently means cutting all federal funding for birth control, which Ron Paul vows to do. This would cause even more poor women to require abortions.

And you neglected to mention that he would administer emergency contraceptives only in the case of an "honest rape." There is nothing subtle or nuanced about the monstrous false dichotomy he lays out: distraught, just-raped women in emergency rooms with an attending Ob-gyn vs. women wanting late-term abortions and willing to say they were raped in order to get them. I understand that he was responding to a leading question from Piers Morgan, but he submitted fully to its logic, and took it a step further.

I understand that it's worthwhile to report on the unique qualities of his campaign, and the ideas he has that are gaining broad support, but please don't present him as a genuine lover of liberty when he so callously disregards the rights of women to bodily autonomy.

Abe Sauer (#148)

Well, I think the only point the doctor was making you kind of nail home here. That being in the hospitals with daily firsthand experience can turn many doctors into activists (ON BOTH SIDES MIND YOU). Have some good long chats with Ob-Gyns and I'm confident you'll find, even with "liberals," a lot of discomfort with the whole subject and not a whole lot of the kind of black and white opinions so often exhibited in the boilerplate pro-life/pro-choice debate.

As for whether he is a genuine lover of liberty. I'm not sure. But since he does believe in life beginning at conception (an ideology itself fraught with questions) then his position on abortion would be in line with the liberty of the "life" of a fetus. Again, I'm speculating what Paul would say about such a charge.

@Abe Sauer Perhaps I should talk to an Ob-Gyn myself. What kind of discomfort do you think left-leaning Ob-Gyns tend to have about the abortion issue?

jfruh (#713)

Abe, sorry to be all "black and white," but here are the questions one should pose to a politician about abortion: Do you think it should be legal? Do you think that it should be available "on demand" (i.e., can you just go in to a clinic and request one), or should the government mandate some kind of hoops the women will have to jump through before she can get one (waiting periods, sonograms. etc.) Do you think the government should fund it for poor women?

I mean, I'm sorry, but fuck "personal discomfort" and hand-wringing. I don't give a crap about a politician's human feelings, since I don't believe that most of them have them. Do you think it should be illegal or not? That's the key question.

jfruh (#713)

@Bentley Owen@twitter The idea that ob-gyns would speak with one voice and that you could ask one and get a definitive answer is silly. I'm sure there are a lot who don't like abortion. On other hand, who do you think performs abortions? (Hint: It's ob-gyns! There's no "abortionist track" in medical school.)

Abe Sauer (#148)

@jfruh Well, I was really talking about Ob-Gyns specifically not politicians who happen to be Ob-Gyns. I agree it's a test for support of a candidate on either side but that doesn't change the way those who actually do the procedures feel about it or the fact that, no matter what the political fight about it is, a lot of room between black and white in practice. I mean, sure, there is no "abortion track" in med school but there is also no such thing as the term "abortion" in clinical practice.

Julian Alien (#214,068)

@Bentley Owen@twitter Total B.S.He has stated that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to tell anyone what to do on abortion issues,despite his personal feelings on the subjects.If your State wants to tax you to give contraceptives to people who probably should not be having sex,so be it,just do not expect me to pay for it.There is also this concept of paying your own way in life.That is what I have done my entire life.

Bettytron (#575)

@Julian Alien Here we see Julian Alien at age five, signing a tuition check for his first day of private school.

Julian Alien, growing food so nothing he ingests is sullied with government subsidies. Paving his own roads. Putting out fires and fighting crime in his neighborhood, sweat running down his back. Paying his own way in life.

Julian Alien, deciding who should and shouldn't be having sex, while decrying governmental intervention into one's private lives.

Julian Alien, doesn't care if YOUR state wants to provide women's contraception. Don't ask him what he'd do if HIS state passed such a provision.

jfruh (#713)

@Julian Alien "He has stated that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to tell anyone what to do on abortion issues,despite his personal feelings on the subjects.If your State wants to tax you to give contraceptives to people who probably should not be having sex,so be it…"

Can I ask an honest question here: Why is the state the level of government that's held so sacred in your view? I mean, most states (especially the square ones out west) were just carved out of unorganized U.S. territory along arbitrary lines; there's nothing about Colorado or Wyoming that makes it a single, magically united community in the way that, say, the U.S. a a whole is not. Heck, I live in Maryland, a state that pre-exists the Constitution, and its borders are a weird mishmosh that arose from various conflicting colonial land grants, not a clear line that defines a single people. Why is it OK for the liberal voters of Baltimore and Montgomery County to vote in a Democratic majority that passes laws that are distasteful to the rural Eastern Shore and Appalachian country, but not OK for liberal voters in New York and California to vote in a Democratic government distasteful to Utah and Idaho?

whizz_dumb (#10,650)

I'm starting a "Give FREE contraceptives to people who probably should not be having sex" campaign. It sounds helpful, and HOT.

Danzig! (#5,318)

@Abe Sauer I'm not sure why people care so much what OB-GYNs think about abortion, any more than what plumbers think about it.

Danzig! (#5,318)

@jfruh I was under the impression that the actual teaching of the how-tos of abortion (at least past a certain point in the gestation process) were dwindling / under attack.

Abe Sauer (#148)

@Danzig! This is quite possibly the stupidest comment ever posted here… including a number of my own.

Danzig! (#5,318)

@Abe Sauer I take it you're a big fan of "conscience protections"

I mean I'm sure there are two sides to this issue we can vacillate between, but I'm assuming here.

BirdNerd (#4,196)

@jfruh Is there a "print post" function? Cause I'd like to carry your post around in my pocket forever.

I have to say that this issue is the one I have the most problem with Dr. Paul. But, because he is a Doctor, and has taken a vow to "Do No Harm", I totally understand where he is coming from on this issue. I believe women should be able to choose what to do with her body, but I also believe a Dr. should not be forced to commit harm against his beliefs and/or Dr. vows. It is a horrible thing either way but the one thing I do agree with him about IT IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BUISNESS !!!!!!!

melis (#1,854)

I am calling DR. VOWS as a band name here and now.

C_Webb (#855)

@melis Barren Harridan will open for you.

stuffisthings (#1,352)

@melis Hang on, that's NOT how trademark law works…

SeanP (#4,058)

@melis Paging Dr. Vows…

stuffisthings (#1,352)

@stuffisthings Haha I read "brand" name. See: Ron Paul makes people me stupid!

Bryan Keller (#3,804)

I work with a Ron Paul cult member, but I do partially understand the appeal. He is sort of stalled in his career (like a lot of younger people), so he focuses on every penny being deducted to pay taxes.

Also, my co-worker is an Iraq war vet and, like many actual veterans of war, he doesn't like it! Ron Paul is the only candidate who has served in a war and he doesn't like it either.

That said, we yell at one another on Facebook over this douchebag candidate all the time. But I do understand.

Ralph Haygood (#13,154)

They are white – so white. Impossibly white for members of a political movement with a plausible claim on governing this gorgeously colorful country.

Actually, of course, the problem isn't so much the whiteness of the crowd as the historically virulent and perfunctorily repudiated bigotry of the man they adore.

Abe Sauer (#148)

@Ralph Haygood Not really. While I'm not going to pretend Paul's Minnesota group was less than predominantly white, they were far more diverse than any other GOP pol's that I've ever been to. In fact, there were a lot of younger people from Minneapolis' Somali community there last night. I'm not sure why but Paul's views on American military force may have something to do with that. Or, you know, his (CURRENT) views on the wrongness of America's rather racist criminal justice system.

Ralph Haygood (#13,154)

@Abe Sauer I'll take your word for it, although I sure don't see 'em in your photos. In the (colossally improbable) event Paul becomes president, they may be surprised by the ensuing lack of official enthusiasm for "Hate Whitey Day." (http://bit.ly/mvOgo)

Snark aside, what's pathetic is that this man, with his racism, goldbuggery, and other foolishness is yet the most conspicuous public spokesman for certain kinds of sanity, such as ending the "War on Drugs." I believe Paul would attract little attention if the Democratic party were not now utterly dominated by people with no interest in their party's historical commitments to social justice.

heb (#23,764)

I'm impressed. It only took 4 sentences to go from "so young" to "most bangable."

I will also add that I am voting for Ron Paul, regardless, because I believe it is more important for Ron Paul to win than anything else because our country's economic problems trump any kind of social issues, truly. If we don't do something about our economic house of cards (FED) soon, all the social issues that everyone is fighting about won't mean a whole lot anyways when your dollar won't buy you an abortion or contraceptives….. For Goodness sakes people, use a condom!!!!!

melis (#1,854)

@Lisa Chase Farkass@facebook If everyone used condoms as extravagantly as you use exclamation points, we'd have a negative birth rate!!!!!!

melis (#1,854)

"I'd like one abortion, please."

"Of course, young person. That will be a single American dollar."

"Here you are, shopkeep."

"Thank you, young person. Would you like paper or plastic?"

melis (#1,854)

"I'd like one abortion, please."

"I'm afraid that because the chair of the House of Money-Cards, Supreme Imperial Wizard Ben Bernanke, has recently adjusted the interest rate, that abortion will now cost you one dollar American fifty-five."

"But…I haven't got that kind of money! It was taken from me by the tax dragoons!"

"Then, sexual gladiator, it's five years in the spice mines for you and your baby! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

C_Webb (#855)

@melis I would like to buy you a drink.

melis (#1,854)

@C_Webb I live right off of Geary, so I'm pretty close to Trad'r Sams. Let me know when you have arrived in San Francisco. Most drinks there are like $6-8, so it shouldn't be too big of an investment.

this is for Ralph Haygood, please read pages 64-66 of Ron Pauls book 'Liberty Defined' and then please tell me you still think he is a racist, please. Then get back to me.

melis (#1,854)

Don't do it, it's just three pages of racial slurs coded as part of a memoir. YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW what the word "freedom" is an analogue for.

roboloki (#1,724)

@Lisa Chase Farkass@facebook you know who didn't mention killing jews on pages 64-66 of mein kampf?

freetzy (#7,018)

I hope the Ron Paul Family Cookbook doesn't include anything about driving to the store to get ingredients, because those roads are paid for with taxes, you know.

SeanP (#4,058)

@freetzy In the libertarian utopia, all roads will be privately owned and tolled, like God intended.

whizz_dumb (#10,650)

@SeanP I'm reminded of my favorite billboard stating "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". Barely applies here, but it's kind-of an original sin guilt-trip rebuttal.

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

Libertarians are like cockroaches. You can't reason with them, you can't defeat them, but they will not defeat you either. You just have to keep stomaching them. They will not go away, and after the nuclear holocaust, they will take over the world.

deepomega (#1,720)

On the one hand, Ron Paul was a racist. Other the other hand, he's pretty much the most gung-ho opponent to the War on Drugs, which is the most racist policy being implemented by Congress. I'd rather have a former racist end racism than have him retire and stop fighting it.

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

"Was" a racist? That's an impressive inference.

Although yes, opposing the War on Drugs is a powerfully anti-racist position. Opposing the Civil Rights Act, not so much.

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

@deepomega I seriously don't care if any particular person "hates black/brown/yellow people" as much as I care whether they threaten to abolish the protections that minorities have against being obliterated by the majority, the protections which only the "big government" can give them. Plus, it's not only about minorities, but also about all other kinds of people not able to "compete in the free market" that need and should be protected.

Never mind the racism. What's important is that libertarianism is inherently a destructive philosophy. Having the civilization end with the last man beating the next-to-last one for the last piece of bread would be just fine with them, just as long as "the governmental doesn't intervene".

deepomega (#1,720)

@DoctorDisaster I didn't say he isn't CURRENTLY a racist, but the newsletters were 20 years ago, and I don't know of any racist shit he's done recently. I don't want to call it "benefit of the doubt," just realpolitik about the nature of day to day harm to blacks in america.

@Niko: I'm not going to get into an argument about whether or not libertarianism is "destructive" – I'll just say this: Any liberal who made it through 8 years of Bush in charge (and 3 years of Obama not actually closing gitmo or speeding up the withdrawal from Iraq) without any skepticism towards the government is an idiot.

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

@deepomega Not to mention any liberal who has ever read about Hitler, right? C'mon.

Bettytron (#575)

@Niko Bellic Yes yes yes. Paul doesn't seem to recognize that part of the Constitution is affording protections – free speech, religion, privacy- that the states simply can't. Or, you know, the states may not. Paul's perfectly happy with anti-sodomy laws, anti-abortion laws, gay marriage bans, as long as they're at a state level! He's got no interest in protecting people against discrimination in the form of harassment or lower wages, etc. He's elevated "personal responsibility" to something that completely overrides social responsibility.

SeanP (#4,058)

@DoctorDisaster exactly. Using the power of the state to force lunch counter owners to serve black customers: worse than 1984! Using the power of the state to eject black customers from the lunch counter: just enforcing property rights. Nothing to see here.

stuffisthings (#1,352)

Well, aside from being a possible racist and misogynist, there is also the small issue that literally every factual statement I've ever heard the man make is demonstrably false (aside from "the Iraq war was a mistake" or "the Drug War is bad," which are, at the end of the day, opinions). Especially talking about the economy, which his Republican supporters regard as his strong suit!

Lockheed Ventura (#5,536)

@stuffisthings That is a very broad statement.

Actually, the best argument to support Paul after foreign policy is economics. He is the only candidate to critique the Federal Reserve and our monetary policy which at the end of the day is the only policy that actually matters since it drives all others. Other candidates and the media are afraid to discuss these issues which simply reveals how shallow and fraudulent our political system is.

stuffisthings (#1,352)

@Lockheed Ventura I guess that could be true, if he'd ever said anything about economics that wasn't wrong?

I'm talking about statements like "expansionary monetary policy is resulting in runaway inflation, which is causing the dollar to lose its value against other currencies and eroding the value of social security payments" which are all simply factually untrue things.

Astigmatism (#1,950)

@Lockheed Ventura Certainly the best argument to support Paul is to get to hear him talk about economics, so that Krugman keeps getting the opportunity to write things like "he really has built his political career around the notion that he’s an expert in a subject about which he actually understands nothing." When that goes away I'll be very very sad.

r&rkd (#1,719)

The War on Drugs and the War to Blow Up Brown People for No Discernible Reason are sooooo bad that I would accept all of Paul's other kooky and terrible ideas just to be rid of them.

And actually, Paul's kooky and terrible ideas about the economy would mean that there would be no money left to fight those wars!

Abe Sauer (#148)

@Lockheed Ventura Funny, going by the fervent, young crowd there last night, it's almost as if Paul's message is taken a la carte. I think it's a mistake to think even a majority of his supporters adhere to his whole message. I don't even think his economic message resonates that much. The subjects that get the most dramatic applause are the kinds of individual issues that gnaw at young people. The drug war, and all of its built-in class and racial unfairness, is a big one. Another is our foreign military extension. The average 23 year old just does not understand why we need a military outpost in Korea, let along Germany. Then there is government overreach like SOPA. Honestly, I think a lot of the other stuff–like End the Fed–just passes right by without a whole lot of thought.

Lockheed Ventura (#5,536)

@stuffisthings I disagree. We are in a period of inflation just look at the price of food and gas. Haven't you noticed that all of the boxes at the grocery store are so much smaller than they were five years ago? Americans are not desiring smaller portions, food prices have been going up.

An expansionary monetary policy does lead to inflation, in fact the Federal Reserve is very open that it is seeking a higher rate of inflation. The question is whether it is "runaway" inflation and on that point Paul is overstating the case. Still inflation does erode Social Security payments and the Dollar would decline more in value against other currencies except that other countries are also pursuing expansionary monetary policies to keep up with the Americans.

stuffisthings (#1,352)

@Lockheed Ventura OK, I don't have time to continue this, so just go visit Google, and here are a few phrases to get you started: "us cpi historical" "usd to gbp" "usd to eur" "ecb monetary policy too tight" "usd to rmb" "social security cola 2012" Enjoy!

Ron Paul or no one at all .. Be apart of thr Military March Feb 20th at Washington DC for Ron Paul be Apart of History and the Revolution .
to say you was apart of the Revolution 2012

melis (#1,854)

Twenty throw down in my fist of rage / and the man to my left has folded down / well Gingrich doubled up with a royal flush / I had three jacks and a pair of nines / My mind is turning – just two shots more / there's not much left to play / Then Barack walks in / Black hat on top, what a mop / I'm lucky it wasn't a county cop / Cause I'm just running out of time. / So I said, Romney, whatcha doing tonight? / He looked at me with a face full of fright / And I said, how 'bout a revolution? / And he said, "Right."

C_Webb (#855)

@Scott E Downer@facebook "Apart." Oh sweet jesus.

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

@Scott E Downer@facebook A military march? The champions of individual freedoms marching in lockstep to honor their leader would be a high comedy act I'd pay good money to see!

Lockheed Ventura (#5,536)

@Niko Bellic What you fail to understand is that by supporting Paul many in the military are rejecting the global imperialism of the Republicans and the Democrats. This is a good thing and should not be ridiculed.

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

@Lockheed Ventura What's preventing those in the military who are against the global imperialism to simply march against the global imperialism?

I read all these comments about abortion and a womans right to control her body, etc. etc. etc.

Why does nobody ever mention the parental authority of fathers in this context? Why aren't prospective fathers asked if they want a child, or not?

Nobody seems to have a problem discussing fathers parental RESPONSIBILITY (for twenty years or more…)but not a single word about fathers parental authority.

Just another example of our schizo society, overly-propagandized by feminists.

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

@Dick Freeman@facebook It's pretty simple: no one can have any authority over another person's body. Where do you people come from?

melis (#1,854)

"Hold still, Becky. I said I was going to take care of this baby even if you don't want it, and I meant it. If that means carving out your uterus and attaching it to my own abdomen, then so be it. God, it's like you never even saw that Human Centipede documentary."

melis (#1,854)

"You know, screaming and bleeding everywhere is not exactly my idea of being helpful, Becky. You can have it back when I'm done. The uterus, that is. Not the baby. The baby I keep. You're going back to the spice mines."

Bettytron (#575)

@melis I want to marry you.

melis (#1,854)

@Bettytron Well, C_Webb and I are getting drinks in San Francisco later, and I dunno if you heard about the Prop 8 ruling this morning, but we could probably make that work. See you guys at Trad'r Sams!

C_Webb (#855)

@Dick Freeman@facebook : Once you shoot that sperm, it's ours, dude. Finders keepers.

roboloki (#1,724)

@Dick Freeman@facebook i give you permission to have as many abortions as you please.

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

@Dick Freeman@facebook:

If it someday becomes possible to remove a fertilized egg from a woman's body and grow it to babyhood in a vat and you, dude, are willing to pay for that procedure, your argument will hold up.

Until then, you are asserting that those five sweaty minutes award you "authority" (YOUR WORD) over what happens inside another autonomous human being's body for nearly a year.

Drug mules are treated better than that, you fucking monster.

@C_Webb I want to frame that comment.

whizz_dumb (#10,650)

@Niko Bellic Our society IS overly-propagandized by feminists! Everywhere I turn it's Rosie the Riveter all up in my face. Where I'm from, women just don't flex like that!

jamietie (#8,517)

An issue for Paul supporters to address: If he believes that states should decide on gay marriage, why did he co-sponsor and vote for the Defense of Marriage Act? My problem with Paul is that he says he wants government out of things, but what he really wants is to let rich people do what they want sans consequences or regulations.

Julian Alien (#214,068)

Nothing unconstitutional about letting States decide what marriage is.I believe it is a boundary for what the gays are trying to impose on society,besides Ron was not in Congress at the time and could not vote on it.Zero proof for the other stuff you say..Is that you Newt?

Astigmatism (#1,950)

@Julian Alien I do not think this "Constitution" means what you think it means.

roboloki (#1,724)

@Julian Alien the geighs aren't trying to impose anything on society. the government has decided to promote one form of "pursuit of happiness" over another by granting visitation rights and tax breaks. a truly libertarian view would be to ban the government from promoting one lifestyle choice over another by not sanctioning marriage. marriage should be a civil contract between individuals and nothing more (mine would have a "hookers and blow" clause).

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

@Julian Alien "what the gays are trying to impose on society"

Do you really think that 45% (or whatever) of population of California is gay, you dummy? Marriage equality is not something "gays are trying to impose", it's widely accepted interpretation of personal freedoms.

jamietie (#8,517)

@Julian Alien I stand (somewhat) corrected. He's said he WOULD have voted for DOMA and he's co-sponsored a bill that would make it illegal for judges to rule DOMA unconstitutional (which is somewhat hilarious to me, since it's a clear violation of separation of powers and would be, on its face, unconstitutional.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage

SeanP (#4,058)

Attn: The Management. Can we please apply the "noindex" tag to articles involving Ron Paul? Or at least decline page requests where the referrer is Facebook? For reasons that are obvious? Thank you.

stuffisthings (#1,352)

@SeanP Seconded! Mainly because it is *so hard* for me not to reply earnestly.

@stuffisthings : There is nothing I like better than a stack of comments that make me literally jam my fist in my mouth lest I disturb my coworkers with disbelieving laughter / obscenities.

whizz_dumb (#10,650)

@Gef the Talking Mongoose I have gotten quite good at a certain breathy laughter so as not to disturb others nearby, but this has been a true test of my laughter suppression skills.

Van Buren Boy (#1,233)

Ron Paul fanatics are always fun, especially when you get around to explaining the actual consequences of his ideas.

"END THE FED!! BRING BACK THE GOLD STANDARD!!!"
"You realize that will completely obliterate the economy right?"
"uhhhhhh….CONSTITUTION! LIBERTY!"
*walks away*

hockeymom (#143)

I don't know about Ron Paul.
I do know that I want @melis to be by my side at the next family get-together. Just to argue for me.

BirdNerd (#4,196)

@hockeymom I want @jfruh

hman (#53)

Is RAND Paul only 49? Ugh.

VegNC (#214,117)

I am pretty sure LW #3 is dating my ex-boyfriend. Run, run away!

Jasons_Johnson (#3,341)

Ron Paul: Liberty if you are male, and white. If you happen to be a woman or a minority, look the fuck out.

Yeah, no.

Danzig! (#5,318)

On his way off stage, Paul was glitter-bombed by a man desperate to prove that even the politically progressive can be miserably uninformed assholes.

Paul's always been vocal about "states rights" horseshit, specifically with his desire to repeal the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, aka the Equal Protection Clause, which explicitly overrides the "this only applies to the Federal Gov't" standard of the Bill of Rights and, through a hundred-plus years of judicial opinion, has become God's Gift to civil rights. Prop 8, among a thousand other dreadful things, would be standing unopposed were it not for the 14th Amendment. Paul's antipathy for it is what made him such a superstar in White Supremacist circles in '08. It's reflected in his son's statements about how the South would have lifted itself out of segregation by the invisible hands of God had the feds just stayed out of it, etc.

Of course, Paul is smart enough to know that even if he's elected President, the Constitution is exceedingly difficult to change. His supporters like to pretend that he's above pandering, but he makes empty promises just like any candidate running for office. It's just this one's making empty promises to Stormfront.

I mean if liberals with no stakes in the game like Mr. Sauer want to say there is an operative difference between opposing civil rights on "principled" Constitutional Originalist grounds and opposing civil rights because you fear and hate Fags / Blacks / Broads / Whatever, it's their privilege to do so. Liberals are making over-intellectualized excuses for bad policy all the time. I'm just glad somebody's glitterbombing the motherfucker. Run him out on a rail.

ainsliet10 (#214,276)

Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wished to say that I have really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again soon!

@ainsliet10 Fucking libertarians.

BirdNerd (#4,196)

@hockeymom I want @jfruh

These are the most comments I have seen here.. ever.

Post a Comment