Ron Paul…for once…right on the money

  I seldom agree with Mr. Paul’s stance on anything.  Mainly because I think he is a coward that hides behind the constitution rather than do what’s right for America.  He will then of course leap out and do what’s right for the gulf coast of texas, for oil industries, gold corporations etc.

   This time though I have to agree with him.  His face has been placed on the liberty dollar.  A non U.S. mint coin being minted right here in Indiana.  Mr. Paul’s campaign spokesman says that they would rather continue to get the worthless federal reserve notes that the other candidates are collecting than these precious metal coins that are worth their weight in silver.  His spokesman also says that federal reserve notes should compete legally with specie currency, by allowing people to make purchases with gold and silver.  Yes, Lets make life a little harder on the minimum wage workers of America.  Good Plan Ron.  “We would greatly prefer that folks would just donate rather than buy a Ron Paul dollar,” he says. “We think that’s the best way to help out Ron Paul.”

Interesting that he only wants to use gold and silver if everyone else is.  Guess our “phony money” is stable, legal tender to Ron after all. 

16 Responses to Ron Paul…for once…right on the money

  1. Chad says:

    Howdy! Thanks for all of your political musings…

    First off, Ron Paul is not a “coward who hides behind the constitution” in my opinion. It takes a lot of guts to get up and say “our policy is making us less safe” when all the other candidates refuse to be honest about it.

    He voted YES on going after Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

    Crud, I have to run. He’s no coward! He’s a brave hero. If he were a coward, why would more people in the military support his campaign than ANY other candidate on either side:

    Seriously, give it some thought and tell me what you think.

    Thanks again for the interesting blog!


  2. hey chad…good to see you. I’m talking more about his stances on our everyday issues. I think it is a sorry excuse to vote no on everything. Never take a stand except for a document should have been pillaged at least 20 times in the last 20 years alone. His stance allows him to not vote his conscience on issues he would rather avoid.

    as far as the war? I absolutely agree. The problem for our politicians is they don’t get to speak with no consequence, and Iraq withdrawal is shaping up to have dire consequences that they will have to contend with in the future.
    thanks for coming by

  3. Jason Keeves says:

    Go ahead and vote for a neocon who is a member of the CFR then. More IRS, more taxes, more war, more pre-emptive war, more inflation to pay for war, fewer personal liberties, more surveillance, less democracy, more corporate control — whatever you want, it’s all right there for you to support it. The only throat you cut by not voting for your own Constitutional rights is your own. If that’s how weak DNA weeds itself out, so be it. I’m cool with that.

  4. Jason Keeves says:

    Go ahead and vote for a neocon who is a member of the CFR then. More IRS, more taxes, more war, more pre-emptive war, more inflation to pay for war, fewer personal liberties, more surveillance, less democracy, more corporate control — whatever you want, it’s all right there for you to support it.

    The only person you hurt by not voting for your own Constitutional rights is yourself. If that’s how weak DNA weeds itself out, so be it. I’m cool with that. Keep the species strong.

  5. Hi Jason. I think Ron Paul is as close to a neo con as I have found, but then I don’t just read his freindly blogs and dismiss the rest as weak

    have a nice day, and don;t let the door hit you in the ass…retarded pauliac

  6. it would appear jason has a bit of a passion for paul problem

  7. Flo Hoffman says:

    Another spoof website. LOL fellows glad to see you have a sense of humor

  8. hi flo…whats so funny?

  9. Chad says:


    I immediately like you because I wrote a song about Jiminy Cricket, so he always stands out in my mind.

    I don’t at all consider myself a “Pauliac” (although I do support him)…so I’m not offended by you disagreeing with him on certain issues.

    My main question is what specifically are you uncomfortable with. You seem to be upset with him for having a consistent view of what the government should and shouldn’t do (according to the constitution).

    I am just honestly curious which things you think he is inconsistent about and why?

    Also, again no disrespect–just curiosity, I don’t understand how he is ANYTHING like a neo-con. So again, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

    Take it easy pal. I’ll check in tomorrow. Keep writing.


  10. I’m uncomfortable with anyone who swaddles themselves in an archaic document written over 200 years ago and virtually impossible to change. I’m uncomfrotable with him being in favor of free markets and then using taxpayer money to fund off shore oil drilling. I’m uncomvortable with his position vis a vis states right. That is a system that would throttle america. Basically, I’m uncomfortable with any one that I feel is insane. I like the guy. I just think he would be a horrible president.

  11. Chad says:


    You only mentioned one example (off shore oil drilling). EVERY politician believes in states rights to some degree, he’s just the only one that wants states to have the rights not specifically delegated to the constitution.

    You might disagree but it’s not so crazy. It’s just a matter of whether you want a government with rational limits or one that can do whatever it wants to. George Bush’s warrantless wiretapping BS is exactly the kind of thing that happens when you don’t hold your government to a specific set of restrictions.

    What in the constitution do you not approve of? I just want to know because I am really interested in your obvious dislike of the document (which again really doesn’t offend me)…

    As for the offshore oil drilling…Ron Paul NEVER votes for tax dollars to be spent on offshore oil drilling. What he does is forwards earmark requests from his constituents, and TELLS THEM “I’m going to vote against this spending bill.” And they say, that’s fine, but if it’s going to pass anyway, this is something we’d like to have in there.

    Ron Paul’s opinion is pretty sensible. He doesn’t want the government taking so much money from his constituents, and he doesn’t want it SPENDING that money on anything unconstitutional…BUT if it’s going to do this anyway then he wants his constituents to get some of their money back through ear marks.

    This is what just about every other politician does, except they DON’T vote against the unconstitutional spending bill.

    This is my take on it. I see this as one of Paul’s strongest points because he’s so honest that he TELLS his constituents “I’m going to vote AGAINST giving you this earmark.” That takes some real guts, but they still appreciate him for his principled stance.

    I gotta go watch a movie with my pregnant wife…actually she’s four days overdue.


  12. chad..there is a link to it in one of my posts…he did vote for it through the department of the interior i believe. I look around for it when i have a minute, but its also at…he did vote for it.

    I don’t consider voting against everything to be reasonable. States rights were rolled back by lincoln, and I am against state legislatures having that much control. Here is why. they are stupid. That simple. They can’t run what they have now, and you want them to have more respnsibility.

    My not liking the constitution stems more from our national legislature than the document itself. It’s to hard to change. Thats my problem with it. It was rwritten in a world that had no internal combustion engine, no telephone, no computer, no internet, and it is antiquated. thats my problem with it.

    good luck with the baby

  13. Barry Day says:

    CriminyJicket — I agree with you 100% on state legislatures being stupid. Good thing we have 50 of them. That way, when they get too far out of whack, citizens can vote with their feet and pursue a more agreeable place…. whatever that means to the individual.

    I’m confused, though, as to one thing: What guarantees that our Federal government will act more intelligently than a State government?

    If you really do prefer a dominant central government, you should move to China. I really think you’d like it — it’s an amazing place.


  14. hi barry….you clever boy. I don’t much like a dominant government anything, but realize the need for a central government. It keeps us from having slave sales in georgia, and fuck your child jamborees in arkansas.

    if thats all you got go over to that idiot stanky’s
    have a good day

  15. mdvp says:

    “Crimsy”, criminy? Now they have nicknames? And I happened to find the title funny. I was scared at first. I’m making a list of things that happened since I left and you’ve already contributed one thing to that. Maybe I’ll put this one on it too.

  16. yhought I’d lost my last marble did you? no chance. I only represent the at least slightly sane

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: