Kenny Golden Endorses Ron Paul for Speaker

Ad hominem much? (0.00 / 0)

Dr. Paul is a reasonable choice, likely being one of the few in Congress that has read and understands the intent of the Constitution.  He is also a proponent of small federal government, and legally declared wars.  I don't need the opinion of others, nor their biased "ratings" that require pandering to earn to figure out he's a better option than many in the GoP.

In my 17 years of following politics, I haven't seen examples of your claimed bigotry.

---

by: averageguy @ Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 18:29:25 PM UTC

Nothing "ad hominem" about (0.00 / 0)

providing the ratings of Ron Paul's (heinous) legislative record or his own past statements (loony conspiracy theories,  etc.). Just do a few Google searches, they're very easy to find.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 20:41:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because everything.... (0.00 / 0)

On the web is factual?  How many groups try to sink qualified people and paint their actions or statements in a negative light? John Kerry comes to mind. While I didn't agree with his views, or really like him that much, I believed that he was given a raw deal, and was a decent candidate.

Facts are easy to come by, looking at the bills he's written, all adhere to the Constitution and none have had him tossed out. The GoP would discredit him quickly if there was any public proof of claims like those. Especially after the disastrous '08 campaign. They're still trying to be "electable" rather than Constitutional, like the Dems.  Politics has become more about slander and deception, rather than correct ways to solve problems. It's also a very exclusive club, if you're not invited, you're not wanted, which is why the "Tea Party" movement is being mocked on both sides. People want to be heard, even if we don't agree, its part of what makes this country, and its government great. Individuals have a say, and that's one of the reasons I love this country.  

---

by: averageguy @ Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 13:02:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Everything on the web is NOT (0.00 / 0)

factual?  Right back atcha! :)

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 14:01:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ron Paul is a libertarian (0.00 / 0)

and an advocate of Austrian economics, the gold standard, and "personal responsiblity," however that is defined. In other words, he actually has a consistent and coherent philosophy and is much admired by plenty of people, especially in the "investing class" because of his ruthless advocacy for untrammelled capitalism and exploitation of the world's resources by entrepreneurs. I think he was a rational Tea Party thinker before there was a Tea Party; I do not consider him to be on the "right" so much as, yes, an old-time Whig in modern dress, so it's no wonder the New Whigs endorsed him. In a way, he represents where the Republican Party has been heading since Reagan, and he's a hero to many rising younger Republican activists. Dangerous, therefore.

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 23:34:35 PM UTC

If he really were a libertarian (0.00 / 0)

he'd be 100% pro-choice, an advocate for the free flow of labor (e.g., unrestricted immigration), pro-gay-marriage, etc., etc. He's not any of that, which means he's not a "libertarian" on social issues or on immigration. Not to mention all his other issues (crazy conspiracy theories, etc.).

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 00:10:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Modern Whig party? (0.00 / 0)

That's not too reassuring, considering that the Whigs gave us some of the worst presidents in history (Millard Fillmore, John Tyler, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor) and the party ultimately broke up right before the Civil War over half of its members' fond support for slavery.  

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 23:47:49 PM UTC

All true, and one reason (0.00 / 0)

the Republican Party was founded in the 1850's, absoring many of the former Whigs (and their notions).

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 00:34:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ron Paul is not antisemitic or racist (0.00 / 0)

Another widespread rumor.  The NAACP in no uncertain terms has stated on several occasiona that Ron Paul is not a racist.  The rumored antisemitism, neonazism and white supremacism stigma was from all the rumormongering by zealous media outlets that became widely accepted because the lies were so often repeated.. Extreme groups did endorse but they did not represent Dr. Paul as far as I could tell..  Then it was accepted as unquestionable truth when Dr. Paul stated he would cut aid to Israel and the Republican Jewish Congress candidates forum banned him, which was later exposed as a behind the scenes RJC outreach to the GOP establishment.  I ended my membership over this and other disagreements I have with the organization.  

Personally I know the Israelis overwhelmingly despise Obama and many who know of Paul like his defense posture.  Dr. Paul's jewish supporters such as myself envision a better perception of Israel as an ally of the US as opposed to an outpost in the middle east if our state dept were not so deeply involved with influencing Jerusalem's national affairs with US dollars.  Dr. Paul also understands all too well that Israeli aid from the US presents additional risks for Israeli and US mutual interests by feeding the broad perception that Jews wield too much influence over U.S. foreign policy.

Here is some good reading http://www.jewishjournal.com/e...

Avoid no question and answered honestly.  That is what is so lacking in our political leaders and the gop and dem media assault on Dr. Paul points up why so few have the courage to risk being marginalized.

Look in the dem and gop pasts..  Where there ever groups they should have distanced themselves from but did not in order to gain votes?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I stand by my comments and links.

---

by: turbocohen @ Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 02:59:34 AM UTC