Maybe more like the new Ross Perot?
Except I think Ross Perot had a sane foreign policy.
Back in the 1970’s Paul was seen as great conservative.
Rand Paul pointed out in an appearance recently that his father was one of only four Republican members of Congress to endorse Ronald Reagan over Gerald Ford in 1976.
Paul was rated one of the most conservative members of the House back some 30 or so years ago along with fellow Texas member Dick Armey.
Paul is opposing the foreign policy establishment just like he did in the 1970’s when they pushed detente with the Soviets.
Today the foreign policy makers value a New World Order and fight limited wars.
I support our troops in Afghanistan but its pretty obvious the enemy there is backed by Pakistani elements that aren’t being defeated on the battlefield.
Paul argues against the wars but comes off as the anti-war nut who supports America’s enemies.
That hurts him but his heart is still against the political establishment and their schemes to increase our national debt and fight limited wars under international rules and authority.
I would vote for Newt in SC, but Paul is capturing hearts and Sarah Palin says we can’t ignore his voters.
Well duh. I’ve been pointing out the similarities between the Paulistinians and the LaRoushis for a long time.
With the proportional delegate scheme the GOP is using this year, Lyndon LaRouche II has a fairly decent shot at winning. Do not underestimate this 911 Truther to be as incompetent as LaRouche. He has a plan and may take over the convention no matter that the outcome for the other candidates is.
LaDouche??? DEFINATELY!!!
So what's new?
In my opinion, conspiracy theorizing hacks like Larouche, and Paul have much credibility. Through the scope of hindsight, what they have spoken of, has not only come to pass, but has been seen as mainstream news. NOW we call them nuts, but they are and were right about the course of history.
Lyndon’s still breathing, isn’t he? What do we need a new one for.
Went TDY to the Pentagon to teach a few times. Couldn’t get over that they allowed the LaRouche alcolytes to set up on the steps leading to the entrances and pass out the commie tracts.
For example, he said Queen Elizabeth was a drug dealer.
She was. The US federal government government is involved in dealing drugs and gun smuggling. Everyone but the writer apparently knows this.
Everyone here realizes that Lyndon Laruche was a commie right? I’m not a fan of Ron Paul, but comparing him to a communist? No, not a good comparison....
The fraud is the author believes politicians are not nefarious. The conspiracy theories may have the details wrong, but how come most pols end up getting rich, and we end up with less freedom, no matter who is in office? Paul is on to something, but he is a hack, just like the rest. The difference is, he says only he is pure, and all the rest are hacks. He inspires messianic devotion because he claims all the rest are devils. They are, but so is he. Well, maybe not devils, but they all seem to allow a creeping totalitarianism to come closer and closer. Maybe they’re stupid, or maybe they don’t care, or maybe they’re evil or corrupt. I don’t know- but they all do it.
Front page news? Hardly. But the anti-Ron Paul scream-team never misses an opportunity to get themselves worked up into a lather.
I’m hoping for some really over the top comments on this thread. So please. Don’t hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel.
Is Ron Paul the New Lyndon LaRouche?
Yes, with Pat Paulsen icing on the cake.
LaRouche. I first ran into his people in the early 80s. They were giving away copies of his Fusion Energy Foundation magazine, “Fusion.” There were a number of reputable nuclear physics people onboard.
It was an interesting magazine. Somehow I stupidly gave them my contact information and they started hounding me for money. The guy on the phone would go into a non-stop rant on something or other. The idea was, if you give me money, I’ll stop talking. I would let the guy talk forever and then say, no, not able to give you any money today.
They were hard to shake off, but they eventually went away.
LaRouche promoted himseld as a pro national defense socialist. Paul is a limited government isolationist. Complete opposites.