For decades, Congressman Ron Paul was the nation’s foremost advocate for the libertarian ideologies of less government and greater individual liberty. From his position in the U.S. House of Representatives, Paul argued for smaller government and less intervention in all aspects of our lives – developing a small, but intense, following.
Paul’s followers have shown the power of grassroots involvement – rocking the Republican Party establishment from its dogmatic slumber. Congressman Paul became the benchmark for ideological conviction in the U.S. Congress, and the question since his retirement has been, “Who will be the next Ron Paul?”
There are very few contenders, but one is standout U.S. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan).
At the Western Conservative Summit last week, Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, complained that there are too many libertarian-types in Washington “in both parties.”
Really? Who? Anyone with truly constitutional conservative and libertarian-leaning views knows you can count the number of principled small-government types in Washington, D.C. on one hand. Democrats reliably toe the party line on the vast majority of government-expanding, freedom-limiting issues from Obamacare to amnesty – while most Republicans race to the sell-out line, embracing “moderate” views which are little more than “Democrat-Lite.”
The liberty movement is young – but it is growing. It encompasses the new energy coursing through the GOP – and establishment-types feel increasingly threatened as true conservative leaders continue to gain more political power and influence.
How did Christie reach his conclusion about there being too many libertarians in politics? The answer, of course, is that like so many people, he defined the term “libertarian” according to one issue: domestic spying.
There is a distinct split between those who prioritize liberty and those who prioritize security. Hawks like Christie wish to preserve American lives at any cost, while others see freedom as important for both practical and ideological reasons. As Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither.”
The prioritization of privacy is certainly a popular issue right now. Most Americans do not want their government spying on their phone conversations, text messages, and emails (unless you are Sen. Lindsey Graham, of course). But elected officials feel more pressure to cave to the “neoconservatives,” because in the event of an attack calls for change and increased security (as we saw in the wake of the Boston bombing) will be inevitable.
Regardless, at this point representatives willing to draft legislation against spying programs will immediately turn heads in a positive way.
And so Amash -a libertarian-Republican from Michigan’s third district – teamed up with Rep. John Conyers, a liberal Democrat, to offer a bipartisan amendment that would have forced government spies to first identify their American targets and produce evidence of their terror-related activities before getting warrants to spy on them.
Washington politicos were shocked the measure almost passed.
Who is Justin Amash?
In 2010, Amash stepped up to replace retiring Republican Vern Ehlers and won his primary campaign with endorsements from FreedomWorks, Club for Growth, iCaucus and Ron Paul. He was one of three Republican Representatives – along with Paul – who refused to endorse Mitt Romney in 2012, and instead endorsed Paul, while saying he would “support” the Republican nominee against Obama.
Amash supports a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict, saying “the parties should negotiate a just and mutually acceptable agreement that is not imposed by the U.S. or any other outside power.”
On abortion, Amash believes life begins at conception. He has earned favorable rankings for pro-life votes by various organizations like the National Right to Life Committee and Campaign for Working Families. Regarding gay marriage, he opposed DOMA and argues that “marriage is a private, religious institution that should not be defined or redefined by the federal government.” He consistently gets high-overall scores from groups like the American Conservative Union and Americans for Prosperity.
In contrast to Ted Cruz – who is seen standing for principle and refusing to retreat regardless of what the establishment thinks – much more of Amash’s popularity has come from a direct opposition to the Party. This image was only enhanced when John Boehner kicked him and three other representatives off of their committees in December 2012.
In short, Amash has a legitimate claim to the title of “the new Ron Paul.” His ideology aligns with Paul’s – as does his political courage – and he has connections with the former Congressman who also note the similarity. Ron Paul spent three decades promoting his views, but never had any true “political” success (as traditionally defined).
Paul’s most important success, however, was to attract young people to the liberty movement – replacing Ayn Rand as its central voice. Libertarian ideas have begun to take root in society and now it’s time to translate this into tangible political gains.
Ron Paul’s own son, Rand Paul, has taken a distinctly different path from his father even as he – like Ted Cruz – holds many of the same views. These two U.S. Senators have had tremendous success. Meanwhile, Amash’s following and influence has become more intense as the war on libertarian-leaning Republicans continues to wage within the GOP.
The question is this: Will libertarian-leaning Republicans win new seats in the mid-term elections, gaining key positions of power? That is ultimately the true test. It’s one thing to make headlines with provocative rhetoric and captivating quotes – it’s another to actually achieve and exercise political power.
Only time will tell if this movement achieves its goal of less government and more freedom, but Amash is certainly positioning himself as its leader.
Joshua Cook is a native and resident of the South Carolina Upstate. He received his MBA from North Greenville University and is actively involved in South Carolina politics.
115 comments
“Anyone with truly constitutional conservative and libertarian-leaning views ”
Mr. Cook; There is no need to be redundant in your comments. Conservative and Libertarian are synonymous.
Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and the Republicrats in charge. :)
“Anyone with truly constitutional conservative and libertarian-leaning views ”
Mr. Cook; There is no need to be redundant in your comments. Conservative and Libertarian are synonymous.
Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and the Republicrats in charge. :)
“On abortion, Amash believes life begins at conception. He has earned
favorable rankings for pro-life votes by various organizations like the
National Right to Life Committee and Campaign for Working Families.”
If you’re anti-choice on abortion, you want to use the government to control women’s bodies. That’s not a libertarian conservative – that’s a social conservative.
Seems like all of the libertarian conservatives with buzz around them are “pro-life.” A more accurate description, given the rest of their policies, would be “pro-birth.” They can’t help but be big govt cons/social cons on this one issue. That’s a shame.
It’s not a shame.
It shows them playing both sides against the middle.
It shows that the only thing they are purists about is getting on and staying on the government payroll…while being too gutless to run as Libertarians.
Nitrat, you hit that one out of the park!!!
Kudos to you.
“libertarian conservative” is nothing more than a meaningless buzzword
I stand corrected, Nit. You’re absolutely right. It’s not a shame (I was referring to them being pro-birth being shameful) – it’s a sham to get elected.
Is being pro-slavery also part of being libertarian? If you’re anti-slavery, you want the government to control people’s property rights.
now you’re into the minarchism vs. anarchism debate….it’s natural…there’s always a ? where to draw the line
No because all men (humans) have ‘certain inalienable rights’.
You bring up a good point, some people freak out at the notion of “voluntary servitude”, but it existed in society some time ago.
It is based on the “inalienable” right to decide what you can do with your own body or decide what contracts you can right(like, I’ll be your servant if you promise to feed & house me, for example).
Obviously that wasn’t the case for American black slaves, but there were such cases.
Correct on both counts.
Precisely my point. The right of the baby to live outweighs the right of the mother to do with her body as she so pleases – just as the right of the slave to be free outweighs the right of the slave master to his property. One can be a libertarian and be pro life.
Then you’re not pro life but anti abortion on demand?
I am against abortion on demand.
Last time I went to Wal-Mart,I looked around and thought ,maybe 80% of the people,here ,should have been aborted,and it wouldn’t hurt to have them aborted,right now.
Boom. This^
I like this statement. I argued against Block’s “invader theory” on the basis that the “trespassing” crime was created by the mother herself…and that the natural, “right” thing to do is extend the notion of the “right to life” to the unborn child.
The problem comes in on the “enforcement mechanism”.
What do you do if the mother wants to abort no matter what? Are you going to use the gov’t to put her in straps on a table for 9 months to prevent her from getting an abortion?
Maybe you suggest a prison term if she does it instead? Now the mother is being housed on everyone’s dime….what is the solution to stopping that? Forced adoption? Are we going to have agents stop in to make sure she’s treating the child well if not?
Now I’ve just created two bureaucracy’s by enforcing the above:
1. A gov’t adoption agency(as private inst. can’t force adoption)
2. A gov’t prison to house these masses of women threatening or carrying out abortion.
I’m sure there’s other gov’t agencies/growth I’m missing too as a result.
No doubt, the above issues involve the truly heinous act of abortion, murder, etc. involved…but the “solution” is heinous as well…the “lesser” of two evils maybe…but not enough to justify ongoing intrusion by gov’t in other areas as everyone will fight over where to draw the line.
As we can all see, every time you justify one gov’t intrusion it is naturally extended to other areas, and then we go down the slippery slope itself.
I am against abortion personally…but I’m at the point that I say “bad shit happens all the time, it’s a broken world, etc. et al” but I’m not going to justify the force of gov’t on people because I know the long terms effects of that represent wars that kill huge amounts of people (democide: 262 million estimate by Russo, not to mention his estimate of 6 TIMES the number of those death via “inflictions of people working for gov’t” as he puts it) and spreads economic misery through its domain.
Right, ’cause women are just ignorant chattel and have no right to the most basic form of self-determination: control of what their bodies are used for .
Put her in jail till she has the baby,and then let them starve..
The line on the abortion argument is drawn where a person can be recognized as a human being deserving of the inalienable right to live and protection from the use of force. According to biology, the human zygote is a) human by its DNA, b) alive by the division of cells and progression of complexity (i.e., natural growth). and c) unique from its mother by genetic diversity (although completely dependent). The question is not whether a zygote is human, but where to draw the line as to the acquisition of inalienable rights. I’d be willing to engage in an argument with fellow libertarians on that issue.
At conception.
I won’t touch that one with a 10′ pole…but I agree that you have framed the debate properly.
I’m appalled at Walter Block’s “invader” theory on fetus’s….but the whole issue is unresolvable from my perspective.
The only thing is, I’ve never seen one women ever that has said “I’m proud I had an abortion”….not one.
The whole issue is too difficult intellectually for me.
Wrong-o. I’ve been an atheist Libertarian since the 70’s and in the early 90’s I was database coordinator and Vice Chair of the state party.
About half of the Libertarian Party members were right to life and about half were right to choose. Lotsa fights as a result
Another common misconception is that Libertarians are closer to the Republicans.
The previous primary voting history for Libertarian Party members showed that in earlier primary elections about half had voted Democrat and the other half voted Republican.
That’s not true. There are two ‘bodies’ involved.
Abortion is a question of rights conflict resolution, the women’s right of self-ownership and the right of the fetus to live. There are varying views within libertarian philosophy dealing with the issue but to call a pro-life stance not a libertarian conservative view is simply not true and ill conceived.
“On abortion, Amash believes life begins at conception. He has earned
favorable rankings for pro-life votes by various organizations like the
National Right to Life Committee and Campaign for Working Families.”
If you’re anti-choice on abortion, you want to use the government to control women’s bodies. That’s not a libertarian conservative – that’s a social conservative.
Seems like all of the libertarian conservatives with buzz around them are “pro-life.” A more accurate description, given the rest of their policies, would be “pro-birth.” They can’t help but be big govt cons/social cons on this one issue. That’s a shame.
It’s not a shame.
It shows them playing both sides against the middle.
It shows that the only thing they are purists about is getting on and staying on the government payroll…while being too gutless to run as Libertarians.
Nitrat, you hit that one out of the park!!!
Kudos to you.
“libertarian conservative” is nothing more than a meaningless buzzword
I stand corrected, Nit. You’re absolutely right. It’s not a shame (I was referring to them being pro-birth being shameful) – it’s a sham to get elected.
Is being pro-slavery also part of being libertarian? If you’re anti-slavery, you want the government to control people’s property rights.
now you’re into the minarchism vs. anarchism debate….it’s natural…there’s always a ? where to draw the line
No because all men (humans) have ‘certain inalienable rights’.
You bring up a good point, some people freak out at the notion of “voluntary servitude”, but it existed in society some time ago.
It is based on the “inalienable” right to decide what you can do with your own body or decide what contracts you can right(like, I’ll be your servant if you promise to feed & house me, for example).
Obviously that wasn’t the case for American black slaves, but there were such cases.
Correct on both counts.
Precisely my point. The right of the baby to live outweighs the right of the mother to do with her body as she so pleases – just as the right of the slave to be free outweighs the right of the slave master to his property. One can be a libertarian and be pro life.
Then you’re not pro life but anti abortion on demand?
I am against abortion on demand.
Last time I went to Wal-Mart,I looked around and thought ,maybe 80% of the people,here ,should have been aborted,and it wouldn’t hurt to have them aborted,right now.
Boom. This^
I like this statement. I argued against Block’s “invader theory” on the basis that the “trespassing” crime was created by the mother herself…and that the natural, “right” thing to do is extend the notion of the “right to life” to the unborn child.
The problem comes in on the “enforcement mechanism”.
What do you do if the mother wants to abort no matter what? Are you going to use the gov’t to put her in straps on a table for 9 months to prevent her from getting an abortion?
Maybe you suggest a prison term if she does it instead? Now the mother is being housed on everyone’s dime….what is the solution to stopping that? Forced adoption? Are we going to have agents stop in to make sure she’s treating the child well if not?
Now I’ve just created two bureaucracy’s by enforcing the above:
1. A gov’t adoption agency(as private inst. can’t force adoption)
2. A gov’t prison to house these masses of women threatening or carrying out abortion.
I’m sure there’s other gov’t agencies/growth I’m missing too as a result.
No doubt, the above issues involve the truly heinous act of abortion, murder, etc. involved…but the “solution” is heinous as well…the “lesser” of two evils maybe…but not enough to justify ongoing intrusion by gov’t in other areas as everyone will fight over where to draw the line.
As we can all see, every time you justify one gov’t intrusion it is naturally extended to other areas, and then we go down the slippery slope itself.
I am against abortion personally…but I’m at the point that I say “bad shit happens all the time, it’s a broken world, etc. et al” but I’m not going to justify the force of gov’t on people because I know the long terms effects of that represent wars that kill huge amounts of people (democide: 262 million estimate by Russo, not to mention his estimate of 6 TIMES the number of those death via “inflictions of people working for gov’t” as he puts it) and spreads economic misery through its domain.
Right, ’cause women are just ignorant chattel and have no right to the most basic form of self-determination: control of what their bodies are used for .
Put her in jail till she has the baby,and then let them starve..
The line on the abortion argument is drawn where a person can be recognized as a human being deserving of the inalienable right to live and the right to receive protection from the use of force. According to biology, the human zygote is a) human by its DNA, b) alive by the division of cells and progression of complexity (i.e., natural growth). and c) unique from its mother by genetic diversity (although completely dependent). The question is not whether a zygote is human, but where to draw the line as to the acquisition of inalienable rights. I’d be willing to engage in an argument with fellow libertarians on that issue. http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html
At conception.
I won’t touch that one with a 10′ pole…but I agree that you have framed the debate properly.
I’m appalled at Walter Block’s “invader” theory on fetus’s….but the whole issue is unresolvable from my perspective.
The only thing is, I’ve never seen one women ever that has said “I’m proud I had an abortion”….not one.
The whole issue is too difficult intellectually for me.
Wrong-o. I’ve been an atheist Libertarian since the 70’s and in the early 90’s I was database coordinator and Vice Chair of the state party.
About half of the Libertarian Party members were right to life and about half were right to choose. Lotsa fights as a result
Another common misconception is that Libertarians are closer to the Republicans.
The previous primary voting history for Libertarian Party members showed that in earlier primary elections about half had voted Democrat and the other half voted Republican.
That’s not true. There are two ‘bodies’ involved.
Abortion is a question of rights conflict resolution, the women’s right of self-ownership and the right of the fetus to live. There are varying views within libertarian philosophy dealing with the issue but to call a pro-life stance not a libertarian conservative view is simply not true and ill conceived.
You can get an MBA from North Greenville?
This website is turning into the MAD Magazine-version of Chronicle of Higher Education.
Must be one of those: Take one class a week and finish a semester in 3 months! And, get that MBA in a year! degrees.
I was thinking the same thing. A step above an online MBA, perhaps.
Aah, an elitist. I like that in a person.
You can get an MBA from North Greenville?
This website is turning into the MAD Magazine-version of Chronicle of Higher Education.
Must be one of those: Take one class a week and finish a semester in 3 months! And, get that MBA in a year! degrees.
I was thinking the same thing. A step above an online MBA, perhaps.
Aah, an elitist. I like that in a person.
I wish I had a nickel every time some bozo called some sitting legislator “the next Ron Paul”.
Do you think Ron Paul would ever once suggest raising taxes will solve anything, let alone vote for it?
“The number one problem is debt. If someone brought a proposal that dealt substantially with entitlements, reforming them to ensure our government remains solvent in the long run, then we have to put everything on the table including taxes. I know some libertarians say it’s wrong to put taxes on the table under any circumstances. I disagree. The number one problem is debt. I don’t want to raise taxes; I don’t believe we need any more revenue for the federal government, but I cannot rule out discussion on taxes if someone else is willing to put on the table major reforms for entitlements.”-Justin Amash
Here’s a rep with no name recognition on the same matter:
“I won’t vote for a tax increase. My constituents do not want me to vote for a tax increase. I’m not going to vote to raise the debt because my constituents don’t want me to raise the debt.”-Kerry Bentivoli
More BS from a GOP apologist looking to dupe some libertarian leaning people.
But this is the whopper that really shows how deluded this young man is:
“Paul’s most important success, however, was to attract young people to the liberty movement – replacing Ayn Rand as its central voice.”
Holy cow….I don’t even have to say anything…it doesn’t matter what your leanings are…as long as you have a reasonable connection to reality you can recognize the those that don’t.
“I won’t vote for a tax increase. My constituents do not want me to vote
for a tax increase. I’m not going to vote to raise the debt because my
constituents don’t want me to raise the debt.”
Everybody wants a Ferrari, but no one wants to pay that kind of money for it or borrow to get one. At the end of the day, you have to settle and give up on one of the three items, the Ferrari, the high price, or the huge debt. What Congress is doing is telling us that the payment is really low and just paying for the rest in credit cards behind our backs.
Talk about repossessing their Ferrari even though they’ve made the monthly payments you’ve asked of them and see how mad they get. At the very least, it will make them consider a more reasoned approach to the whole thing. Maybe they’ll trade the Ferrari for a BMW and make more reasonable payments to keep it. Hopefully somewhere along the lines they’ll include paying off the credit cards too.
Compromise keeps the repo man away. I don’t consider Amash to be a bad person for that.
Regardless of your feeling towards Amash’s viewpoints, you would have to concede that he is NOT the “next Ron Paul”.
I watched Dr. Paul school Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 primary, knowing the savages in the room would boo him and think him crazy. He spoke his mind anyway. I saw him do the same thing to that nut Santorum in MB this past election. He was booed for his principles, but he didn’t care, he wasn’t pandering, he was teaching. This country doesn’t deserve Ron Paul, we would rather be treated like spoiled brats who have to be reminded of our greatness constantly, instead of hearing the truth about what America really is. Ron Paul is the Roman senator, warning of the tyranny of Caesar, and no one is listening. When it all comes crashing down, and it will, we cannot say we weren’t warned. And we will deserve all we get.
I witnessed similar things in 07′ as well….I was stunned the first time I heard RonP speak in a early GOP primary debate.
On one hand I was laughing initially at the truth to power speaking….but after getting over my disbelief and actually thinking about what he was saying and “googling” I started becoming disturbed….and then I started to actually cringe at his comments at later debates because I could see the response of the “savages” as you put it.
I’m shamed in one respect that I’m not as brave….but I don’t have a gov’t job and have young kids to support….so until I have “F U” money and the kids are grown it is what it is.
I owe him a great debt for “waking me up”….and exposing me to ideas that I somehow never received even in discussion at three different universities I attended.
I wish I had a nickel every time some bozo called some sitting legislator “the next Ron Paul”.
Do you think Ron Paul would ever once suggest raising taxes will solve anything, let alone vote for it?
“The number one problem is debt. If someone brought a proposal that dealt substantially with entitlements, reforming them to ensure our government remains solvent in the long run, then we have to put everything on the table including taxes. I know some libertarians say it’s wrong to put taxes on the table under any circumstances. I disagree. The number one problem is debt. I don’t want to raise taxes; I don’t believe we need any more revenue for the federal government, but I cannot rule out discussion on taxes if someone else is willing to put on the table major reforms for entitlements.”-Justin Amash
Here’s a rep with no name recognition on the same matter:
“I won’t vote for a tax increase. My constituents do not want me to vote for a tax increase. I’m not going to vote to raise the debt because my constituents don’t want me to raise the debt.”-Kerry Bentivoli
More BS from a GOP apologist looking to dupe some libertarian leaning people.
But this is the whopper that really shows how deluded this young man is:
“Paul’s most important success, however, was to attract young people to the liberty movement – replacing Ayn Rand as its central voice.”
Holy cow….I don’t even have to say anything…it doesn’t matter what your leanings are…as long as you have a reasonable connection to reality you can recognize the those that don’t.
“I won’t vote for a tax increase. My constituents do not want me to vote
for a tax increase. I’m not going to vote to raise the debt because my
constituents don’t want me to raise the debt.”
Everybody wants a Ferrari, but no one wants to pay that kind of money for it or borrow to get one. At the end of the day, you have to settle and give up on one of the three items, the Ferrari, the high price, or the huge debt. What Congress is doing is telling us that the payment is really low and just paying for the rest in credit cards behind our backs.
Talk about repossessing their Ferrari even though they’ve made the monthly payments you’ve asked of them and see how mad they get. At the very least, it will make them consider a more reasoned approach to the whole thing. Maybe they’ll trade the Ferrari for a BMW and make more reasonable payments to keep it. Hopefully somewhere along the lines they’ll include paying off the credit cards too.
Compromise keeps the repo man away. I don’t consider Amash to be a bad person for that.
Regardless of your feeling towards Amash’s viewpoints, you would have to concede that he is NOT the “next Ron Paul”.
I watched Dr. Paul school Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 primary, knowing the savages in the room would boo him and think him crazy. He spoke his mind anyway. I saw him do the same thing to that nut Santorum in MB this past election. He was booed for his principles, but he didn’t care, he wasn’t pandering, he was teaching. This country doesn’t deserve Ron Paul, we would rather be treated like spoiled brats who have to be reminded of our greatness constantly, instead of hearing the truth about what America really is. Ron Paul is the Roman senator, warning of the tyranny of Caesar, and no one is listening. When it all comes crashing down, and it will, we cannot say we weren’t warned. And we will deserve all we get.
I witnessed similar things in 07′ as well….I was stunned the first time I heard RonP speak in a early GOP primary debate.
On one hand I was laughing initially at the truth to power speaking….but after getting over my disbelief and actually thinking about what he was saying and “googling” I started becoming disturbed….and then I started to actually cringe at his comments at later debates because I could see the response of the “savages” as you put it.
I’m shamed in one respect that I’m not as brave….but I don’t have a gov’t job and have young kids to support….so until I have “F U” money and the kids are grown it is what it is.
I owe him a great debt for “waking me up”….and exposing me to ideas that I somehow never received even in discussion at three different universities I attended.
If Amash is the next Ron Paul, then he will be doomed to be as effective as Ron Paul.
I think he has made a huge impact, 10 years ago nobody knew who Ron Paul was. Now he is a household name.
Same for Bashar al-Assad. That doesn’t mean name recognition is a good thing.
Or a moniker.
And looks like he’s about to die…along with the ‘libertarian party’
That says more about our Idiocracy, who think the terrorists hate us because we’re free, than it does about a man who has warned about the consequences of Empire for the last 4 decades. Most Americans know nothing about their own government, so it amazes me how they are all of sudden experts on world politics when it comes to the Iranian threat, even though Iran hasn’t invaded another nation since the Safavid Dynasty.
If Amash is the next Ron Paul, then he will be doomed to be as effective as Ron Paul.
I think he has made a huge impact, 10 years ago nobody knew who Ron Paul was. Now he is a household name.
Same for Bashar al-Assad. That doesn’t mean name recognition is a good thing.
Or a moniker.
And looks like he’s about to die…along with the ‘libertarian party’
That says more about our Idiocracy, who think the terrorists hate us because we’re free, than it does about a man who has warned about the consequences of Empire for the last 4 decades. Most Americans know nothing about their own government, so it amazes me how they are all of sudden experts on world politics when it comes to the Iranian threat, even though Iran hasn’t invaded another nation since the Safavid Dynasty.
The next Ron Paul? Seriously is that even important enough to qualify as a label ?
Without offering my personal opinion on the matter, I would like to compliment you on concisely bringing up an interesting question.
It’s interesting to me how many people talk about how unimportant RP and his viewpoints are…it’s strange actually.
When I find something unimportant, I don’t even talk about.
Fine. The proverbial “if it’s not worth commenting on…why are you commenting”. That is an oldie goldie slap that I have given and received several times.
It’s interesting to me how many people think he is …well, interesting.
I went to one of his rallies (?) in 2008. He is a squirmy little guy and the “followers” looked like people straight from the bar scene in Star Wars.
Ron got out of his car and I walked up to him ,shook his hand and said “Taxation without representation is reprehensible”. (Best I could come up with on the spur of the moment). It flowed well and I assured him he could use it without attribution !
He just nodded and went to the podium.
lol…didn’t mean for it to be a slap.
Just a comment…actually wasn’t directed at you either…I actually thought you were genuinely asking.
If your question was rhetorical, I didn’t pick it up.
Btw, I didn’t “down vote” you either…that was 3 other people.
It was meant a lighthearted comment by me ? …”slap” just trying to come up with the right term or close .As far as the votes– better bad pub than no pub ! Thanks .
Hell I down voted its butt. I wish it would show the danged names. Friends close, enemy’s closer and all that. To paraphrase of course.
“He is a squirmy little guy …”
Wait, so Gifford is unelectable (not that she was ever more than a bean let alone a hill) because she no longer has a symmetrical face. How about Smucky’s never ending forehead or Reids chinless scowl.
I kind of always thought it was the character and not the caricature that was important.
And then he dissed you for not being Mark Twain. What an ass Paul is. :P
Dissed? Maybe but the operative word is “next”. While Paul
was the only “notable” libertarian in the 2000-2010 decade (give or take the years) there are several wannabe “nexters” waiting to go on stage now.
My point ,if any, was simply that no one will have the same spotlight and presence that he has. or had.
Only if you believe it. If the inverse is true, it is true for you.
Uh no Ronnie Paul didn’t “dis” me. Just always acted nervous and
had NO presence like most confidant , arrogant, pols do.
While I am confident that he is secure in his own beliefs but damn sure doesn’t project it !
Con men, and the marks they manipulate, are endlessly fascinating.
Your one liners with no substance only fool the stupid, but at least you know your marks.
The next Ron Paul? Seriously is that even important enough to qualify as a label ?
Without offering my personal opinion on the matter, I would like to compliment you on concisely bringing up an interesting question.
It’s interesting to me how many people talk about how unimportant RP and his viewpoints are…it’s strange actually.
When I find something unimportant, I don’t even talk about.
Fine. The proverbial “if it’s not worth commenting on…why are you commenting”. That is an oldie goldie slap that I have given and received several times.
It’s interesting to me how many people think he is …well, interesting.
I went to one of his rallies (?) in 2008. He is a squirmy little guy and the “followers” looked like people straight from the bar scene in Star Wars.
Ron got out of his car and I walked up to him ,shook his hand and said “Taxation without representation is reprehensible”. (Best I could come up with on the spur of the moment). It flowed well and I assured him he could use it without attribution !
He just nodded and went to the podium.
lol…didn’t mean for it to be a slap.
Just a comment…actually wasn’t directed at you either…I actually thought you were genuinely asking.
If your question was rhetorical, I didn’t pick it up.
Btw, I didn’t “down vote” you either…that was 3 other people.
It was meant a lighthearted comment by me ? …”slap” just trying to come up with the right term or close .As far as the votes– better bad pub than no pub ! Thanks .
Hell I down voted its butt. I wish it would show the danged names. Friends close, enemy’s closer and all that. To paraphrase of course.
“He is a squirmy little guy …”
Wait, so Gifford is unelectable (not that she was ever more than a bean let alone a hill) because she no longer has a symmetrical face. How about Smucky’s never ending forehead or Reids chinless scowl.
I kind of always thought it was the character and not the caricature that was important.
And then he dissed you for not being Mark Twain. What an ass Paul is. :P
Dissed? Maybe but the operative word is “next”. While Paul
was the only “notable” libertarian in the 2000-2010 decade (give or take the years) there are several wannabe “nexters” waiting to go on stage now.
My point ,if any, was simply that no one will have the same spotlight and presence that he has. or had.
Only if you believe it. If the inverse is true, it is true for you.
Uh no Ronnie Paul didn’t “dis” me. Just always acted nervous and
had NO presence like most confidant , arrogant, pols do.
While I am confident that he is secure in his own beliefs but damn sure doesn’t project it !
Con men, and the marks they manipulate, are endlessly fascinating.
Your one liners with no substance only fool the stupid, but at least you know your marks.
Can’t take the Michigan out of the Sic Willie. The GOP is in shambles and will be until someone with some balls steps up and can articulate a simple message of liberty > dependency. Amash is not that guy.
Can’t take the Michigan out of the Sic Willie. The GOP is in shambles and will be until someone with some balls steps up and can articulate a simple message of liberty > dependency. Amash is not that guy.
The Next Ron Paul?
Why do we need the “next one”? Has something happened to the doofus we already have?
The Next Ron Paul?
Why do we need the “next one”? Has something happened to the doofus we already have?
3rd ,4th,5th party candidates would be a great thing.Prioritize, and abolish the electoral college,first.True liberalism no longer exists,and hasn’t for decades.The current political parties are interchangeable,including,’libertarians’.Fits and his columnists seem determined to keep SC going backwards.Few people outside ,The South would take any of these,’political opinions’ seriously.
3rd ,4th,5th party candidates would be a great thing.Prioritize, and abolish the electoral college,first.True liberalism no longer exists,and hasn’t for decades.The current political parties are interchangeable,including,’libertarians’.Fits and his columnists seem determined to keep SC going backwards.Few people outside ,The South would take any of these,’political opinions’ seriously.
Whether he is the next Ron Paul or not, please let him be lacking in skeletons in his closet. No mistresses, prostitutes, sextings of selfies, congressional office trysts with interns, bathroom stall toe tappings, beastiality, pedophilia, malignant narcissism or other sociopathy, blackmail, treason, alcoholic, drug addict…pretty much the current political [cess]pool.
Seriously. Someone has to be perfect to get elected? Name one.
Whether he is the next Ron Paul or not, please let him be lacking in skeletons in his closet. No mistresses, prostitutes, sextings of selfies, congressional office trysts with interns, bathroom stall toe tappings, beastiality, pedophilia, malignant narcissism or other sociopathy, blackmail, treason, alcoholic, drug addict…pretty much the current political [cess]pool.
Seriously. Someone has to be perfect to get elected? Name one.
I thought I had a plumbing problem, but it was just another FBI agent trying to get in through the toilet.
I thought I had a plumbing problem, but it was just another FBI agent trying to get in through the toilet.
Wanta! Black Swan, White Hat –
How the US Government Stole $23 Trillion from the
American People
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_AZRKDabXz6a01fUWlIdE9XSW8&usp=sharing
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2013/08/wanta-black-swan-white-hat-for-immediate-release.html