• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ron Paul is retiring from the House after this year. This is his farewell speech.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Czigga

Member
Video here

Note: It's long. But a worthy watch!

I would challenge everyone to watch or read the transcript here , especially if you hate him, if only to reaffirm your own political beliefs.


A few noteworthy quotes:

How Much Did I Accomplish?

In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.


Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:

•Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
•Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
•Why can’t Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?
•Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
•Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
•Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
•Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
•Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
•Why should there be mandatory sentences—even up to life for crimes without victims—as our drug laws require?
•Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
•Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
•Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?
•Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?
•Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
•Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
•Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?
•Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
•Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?
•Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
•Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
•Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.
•Why is it is claimed that if people won’t or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
•Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
•Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
•Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?
•Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
•Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
•Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions.
•Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy?
•Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
•Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?
•Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration? Yes there is, and there’s a way to reverse these attitudes. The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems. Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easy.

Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves. Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades. The blame is shared by both political parties. Many Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop. Without this first step, solutions are impossible.

Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity. The task is not that difficult if politics doesn’t get in the way.

We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.

Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production. This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty. It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties.

It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor.
Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative.

The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.

This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.

It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.

Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant.

More at the links
 
You can't talk about Ron Paul without talking about some of his crazy ideas, but dammit, his honesty is refreshing and he really could improve the country in a lot of ways.
 
The end of an era.

I voted for him in the Republican Primaries, imagine how different things would be if he had won and had the support of the GOP behind him.
 

ronito

Member
You know I sorta like/hate Ron Paul. Fact is I actually agree with him on probably 90% of his stances. But the 10% I disagree with him on I find his views completely abhorrent.

But I do have to poke fun at this:

•Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
His second question. Ron Paul: Asking the important questions.
 

Aylinato

Member
He only had one good policy, and that was ending the drug war.



His other policies all involved a dream world where discrimination is not real, no one is greedy, and only the most positive results from his policies could ever happen.


Sad to see him go, but at least now the younger generation of libertarians have to go find some one else to hold their flag...and it most likely won't be in the Republican party(they hate Ron Paul, just look what they did to him at the RNC)
 

bdouble

Member
Why does this guy still have followers?

Seriously. His line of thinking is inherently dangerous and extremely impractical.
So we should be ok with stop and frisk? Wearing a tazer bracelet while we fly? Eating government susidized gmo food? Corporations running goverment? Government selling drugs and weapons to criminals? Ect ect in the name of saftey and become even more dependent on the central government?

Its not lunacy to think that if you empower the people like our constitution and bill of rights does that you will have strong citizens that you will have a strong country.

Instead we have a givernment working for themselves and their corporate backing.
 

Aylinato

Member
^ So you should be liberal, as Ron Paul put himself in line with the party that pushes all those agendas...seriously if he really wanted to get any of the policies done he would never list himself as a Republican.


We've still got his brother to deal with... :(

son...his lunatic son...who is insane and doesn't even stand where his father stands.
 
He's a genuine piece of shit.
The points that he makes are valid until he talks about what he would do policy wise then it gets into crazy territory (and ignoring everything from Reconstruction era to WWII, except The fed the fed the fed print money gold inflation nonsense).
Won't miss him.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
^ So you should be liberal, as Ron Paul put himself in line with the party that pushes all those agendas...seriously if he really wanted to get any of the policies done he would never list himself as a Republican.




son...his lunatic son...who is insane and doesn't even stand where his father stands.

Right, right son.
 
So we should be ok with stop and frisk? Wearing a tazer bracelet while we fly? Eating government susidized gmo food? Corporations running goverment? Government selling drugs and weapons to criminals? Ect ect in the name of saftey and become even more dependent on the central government?

Its not lunacy to think that if you empower the people like our constitution and bill of rights does that you will have strong citizens that you will have a strong country.

Instead we have a givernment working for themselves and their corporate backing.
Take your messiah's advice and let's settle this like we did in 1861.
 

antonz

Member
^ So you should be liberal, as Ron Paul put himself in line with the party that pushes all those agendas...seriously if he really wanted to get any of the policies done he would never list himself as a Republican.




son...his lunatic son...who is insane and doesn't even stand where his father stands.

The liberals are as bad as the republicans when it comes to the stuff Paul is talking about. The Nanny State is a huge Liberal and Conservative concept. They just try to act like they approach it differently/avoid it.
 

toxicgonzo

Taxes?! Isn't this the line for Metallica?
For shame at the people who are so quickly to dismiss him because he is Ron Paul.

If you actually listen to his ideas, you can't help but feel he is right about certain things. You know it would never work out in practice, but he raises some very good points.
 

KHarvey16

Member
For shame at the people who are so quickly to dismiss him because he is Ron Paul.

If you actually listen to his ideas, you can't help but feel he is right about certain things. You know it would never work out in practice, but he raises some very good points.

But for every good idea or reality based insight he accidentally provides to us we're left with 10 more that are anything but.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
•Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
Oh come on! PP and motherfucking ACA

Also this:
Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves. Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades.
basically sums up my problems with libertarianism, if you replace "government" with "other people". The idea that self-reliance is somehow feasable is an idea I find deeply flawed.
 
I respect some of his ideas.

He's also one of the least honest politicians out there IMO.

His doublespeak on abortion literally has his own "fan sites" claiming he thinks it's a "States rights" issue.. when he's been the #1 Congressman pushing legislation that would make abortion as illegal as murder federally.

And then there's his BS "stuffing delegates" tactic. How was that anything but offensive to primary voters?

One of the biggest most blatant dick moves in the history of US politics. All under the same lame guise that somehow he and his supporters are the only one's not ignorant or controlled by the media.
 

markot

Banned
Hey, I dont know anyone who hasnt had newsletters in their name full of racist stuff but actually written by someone else so its ok!

Sadly, they are already fellating Rand Paul as their next idiotic idol. He even has Rand in his name so they get all moist.
 

Jarlaxle

Member
Why does this guy still have followers?

Seriously. His line of thinking is inherently dangerous and extremely impractical.

He seems to make a lot of sense to me and seems to be speaking honestly which is a rarity amongst politicians. I for one wouldn't mind seeing an actual change.
 
He seems to make a lot of sense to me and seems to be speaking honestly which is a rarity amongst politicians. I for one wouldn't mind seeing an actual change.

He's not even honest. He backpedals and rants on most of his interviews. See his "debate" against Krugman.

He mostly has two good ideas. Don't start wars and stop the drug war. That's it. There are a decent amount of other people like Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders etc. who have those ideas plus a whole bunch of other great ideas, without all the insane, horrible libertarian economic bullshit. Nor do they have his racist past.

There's no reason to put Ron Paul on a pedestal. Put his two good ideas on a pedestal and forget about this racist old fuck and his moron son.
Exactly.
 

Trurl

Banned
The end of an era.

I voted for him in the Republican Primaries, imagine how different things would be if he had won and had the support of the GOP behind him.

Yeah, Obama's reelection would have looked a lot like the 1964 reelection of Johnson. We also could have seen huge gains for the Democrats in both houses of congress which would have allowed for bold new programs to remake America for the better.

It's a shame it didn't happen.

I have always admired his stances on science, race, sexuality and economics.

Stinkles, you're sounding like a damn fool.
 

markot

Banned
Yeah, Obama's reelection would have looked a lot like the 1964 reelection of Johnson. We also could have seen huge gains for the Democrats in both houses of congress which would have allowed for bold new programs to remake America for the better.

It's a shame it didn't happen.

Itd have been awesome to see all the states go blue too!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom