Why do you think I haven’t read those along with the Federalist Papers, the Founding Experience diaries and pretty much every other thing written on or by the founders? The premise you start with though seems to be that if you don’t support Paul, it is because you aren’t in touch with those documents.
Sorry old pal, but this is cultish. I would argue as I have many times that not only is Paul not a Constitutionalist, he bastardizes those documents in the same way Fred Phelps bastardizes the Bible. Not only that, but frankly, he has been a complete failure as a leader.
Let’s put it in different terms. Let’s say you had a guy under your command who always talked about how he was the best solider. He could quote The Art of War, Chesty’s story, and every detail of every battle. However, the very moment you hand him a gun, he freezes up or walks away? Does just talking actually make him a good Marine?
Paul is like this. He has this year, an opportunity to prove he is more than talk. He was given the most powerful position he could have in regards to oversight of the Fed and monetary system- Chairman of the House Committee on Monetary Policy. What did he do? Jack and Squat. Just to remind you, the Federal Reserve Act says that Congress has oversight over its operations, and this committee is the one given that duty. During this entire year, Paul has called only a couple of meetings, one he canceled and another one he didn’t show up to. On one meeting, instead of calling in bankers or other witnesses, he had on the roster an author who wrote books on Southern Succession and a blogger. He ended up canceling this hearing.
So in this entire year, when he had legal authority do put actions behind his rhetoric, he did jack and squat.
He had authority to subpoena records- he didn’t.
He had authority to call witnesses from the Fed- he didn’t.
He had authority to assign an independent investigator- he didn’t.
This pretty much epitomizes his entire career. He talks and talks and talks and talks and accomplishes nothing.
What makes him any better than a coffee shop philosopher?
“Why do you think I haven’t read those along with the Federalist Papers, the Founding Experience diaries and pretty much every other thing written on or by the founders? The premise you start with though seems to be that if you don’t support Paul, it is because you aren’t in touch with those documents.”
How many Paultards hae read them ? Zero. They’re too busy getting high.
“What makes him any better than a coffee shop philosopher?”
Or bloggers with a mean streak a mile wide who don’t want go along with the program like me!
Great post, champ! Remind me to never attempt to debate you.....
Rock on!
Matt, my primary criteria for a political figure does NOT include seeing how much he or she can get government to GROW. I am interested in SHRINKING IT, to the exclusion of virtually ALL ELSE. I want to see ANY level of government do ONLY what it’s allowed to do, with emphasis on PROTECTING MY RIGHTS. That’s really ALL I want done by FedGov, my State and my city and county. Only one person in this crop of candidates meets that standard. His record of voting to limit government is stellar, even when he’s the only one doing so.
Furthermore, which is more in keeping with the original intent of the founders, a.) allowing nameless, faceless and, ultimately, UNACCOUNTABLE BUREAUCRAPS access to mountains of taxpayer monies to spend as THEY wish or, b.) given our current circumstance, taking a fixed amount of money ALREADY BUDGETED and marking it toward a specific area in one’s own district, attempting to bring back a fair portion of what’s been taken out at the point of government’s gun? If you said b.), you’d be trying your best to do right by your constituents.
Which is more principled, a.) giving lip service to the notion of being “pro-life,” while wringing your hands but doing NOTHING, or b.) introducing, term after term, a bill which would define life as beginning at conception and DENYING THE COURTS JURISDICTION to change that definition, even though NOT ONE of your allegedly pro-life colleagues will sign on as co-sponsors? If you said b.), you would, in my view, be CONSISTENTLY AND STRONGLY pro-life.
Which makes more sense in supporting a friend, a.) giving that “friend” money to purchase items to help him defend himself from his neighbors, ALL of whom want him dead, yet also helping arm those same neighbors and tying your “friend’s” hands behind his back, or b.) cutting off your money to ALL of them, cutting the strings so your FRIEND can use his own best judgment in his defense (and encouraging your other friends to make PRIVATE, stringless donations, if they wish)? Once more, if you said b.), you’d be consistent, principled, and a far, far better friend than the one who offered money, but tried to reduce your friend’s defensive capability to Zero!!!
Last, which would be a greater threat to your personal security, a.) a bunch of backward, goat-humping, pedophile perverts who could only present a problem for you if you left your window open and refused to close it, or b.) your own out of control spending, FAR in excess of your income, coupled with a reduction in your personal liberties, brought on by mindless meddling in your personal, non-coercive business and a desire on the part of your chief exec and his minions to prevent you from correcting the spending and meddling problems? Once more, your b.) answer indicates a perspective that focuses on the true ROOT of your problem.