Skip to comments.Big turnout for the little Texan: Ron Paul at the U
Posted on 09/26/2009 2:18:01 PM PDT by GoldStandard
If you think speeches attacking the U.S. Federal Reserve couldn't excite a Friday night crowd on a college campus, think again.
About 2,000 people -- students and older adults who were in the majority -- filled Northrop Auditorium at the University of Minnesota to cheer libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, as he joined Rep. Michele Bachmann to preach the gospel of a less powerful federal government.
Before Bachmann, R-Minn., introduced Paul, she hailed legislation of his that would require a detailed audit of the Fed. The crowd jumped to its feet and roared approval.
When she described the Fed's actions helping the banking industry as "shrouded in secrecy," one man jumped up and yelled, "Ponzi scheme!"
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Fiscal responsibility is great. But can't conservatives find a better example then Ron Paul? I think we can.
God bless them both...the good doctor can bring the “change we can all believe in”!
His domestic policy is the same as what the Founding Fathers intended. We need more like him in GOP positions of power, not less.
The same Ron Paul the blames America for its ills and embraces, or at least must agree with, Obama’s weak kneed action in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The same Ron Paul that if he had his way, the terrorist plots revealed just this week would have gone undetected until they were carried out?
Paul has some decent fiscal ideas, but when it comes to foreign policy, he’s no better and in some ways is worse that Barack Hussein Obama.
At least we know that Obama wishes to undermine our military and their fight against terror.
Oh yes, we also can’t forget, the same Ron Paul who rails against earmarks, then grabs more than any other Republican in the House?
What earmark has Paul voted for again?
Ron Paul doesn’t rail against earmarks. John McCain does to present some semblance of fiscal sanity. Paul realizes that they’re the best way to get money back to the people that deserve it most: taxpayers.
There seems to be a pretty large anti-Afghanistan contingent here. Not every conservative wants to keep our military in a country that is not going to change and under Obama’s rules of engagement.
God forbid that there would be fiscal responsibility in this country, especially at the federal level of government.
Ron Paul's fiscal responsibility doesn't excuse his anti-American values on foreign policy. On Iraq and Afghanistan, Paul is pathetic. This is a conservative forum, not a Libertarian forum or a GOP forum. Having said that, the last thing the GOP needs is foreign policy weenies like Paul.
That's ridiculous. Noticing that savage tribesmen resent being bested by the White Western Gods isn't "Blame America First", it's fundamental sociological and psychological fact.
Dont' blame Ron Paul for calling a spade a spade, because he's absolutely right.
Your Federal Government is *not* your friend, my FRiend. Never has been, never will be. And it does things in your name with your money that should not only make you hurl, but it enrages other people to the point of suicidal madness (not that they were very far to begin with, but every little push over the line helps, and painting the US citizenry as targets is not something we should encourage).
And just FYI, I think we should have gone nuclear in Afghanistan the first week of the war. And Iraq? If we had gone nuclear in Afghanistan, there would have been no need to send a single American into Iraq.
Compassion only works on the compassionate, and Ron Paul knows this, and he also knows that America is too emotionally weak to nuke a city, even a vicious enemy city, for the sake of victory.
I happened to catch part of Beck’s the Women’s special on Friday. Some woman thanked Ron Paul for making it happen. That’s when I switched it off. The Tea Party movement was in response to the CNBC reporter. Any politician involved in only attempting to bask in reflected glow.
Ron Paul is a nut.
Personally, to me, he blamed the actions of the U.S. federal government, not the American people.
So unless you think the federal government IS America....
not the terrorists for 911.
Come on, don't say things you know aren't true.
Ron Paul was onto something.
Yes, I am a nut before you ask.
So you’re calling a person who has the non-interventionist foreign policy of the Founding Fathers weenies. Yep, that’s real “conservatism” for ya! More like Neoconservatism, actually, not constitutional conservatism.
The Paul-Haters remind me a lot of the idiots @ MSNBC in their vitriol for Rep. Paul. It makes me wonder if they are actually in the same boat.
This has been written way too many times, just this. Repeat the lie often enough, I guess.
Somehow I doubt Paul has ever said he made the tea party movement happen. He can't control some random woman saying it.
Of course, I assume the confusion comes from Paul supporters holding a real tea party in Boston on the actual anniversary of the event back in 2007.
No, YOU'RE ridiculous, newbie!
If I'm wrong then post Ron Paul's remarks in support of Iraq and Afghanistan. I know better. Screw Ron Paul and his blame America first foreign policy. The same foreign policy Obama supports.
I’m not about to excuse Ron Paul or ANYONE for blaming America for 911. The only ones who deserve blame for 911 are the terrorists. Period.
Ron Paul’s anti-America foreign policy of cutting and running isn’t supported by this forum. Period.
Fact is, Paul and Obama have the same foreign policy beliefs. Blame America!
Ah, two ad hominem attacks in one sentence!
Sorry, that's all your tokens. I don't waste my time trying to teach pigs to sing.
That's a ridiculous statement. Rep. Paul voted in favor of the War in Afghanistan. Just 'cuz he didn't support Iraq doesn't make him a traitor. He is a good & honest man that we all should be proud of & thankful for.
Cut and run just like your mentor, Ron Paul.
Can’t take the heat of truth, find a cooler forum. Lucianne.com is still around. LOL
Isn't that exactly the same every other overspending poltiicans does?
"Republican congressmen derided the massive $410 billion spending bill approved by the House of Representatives last week, but some like Houston-area Rep. Ron Paul contributed to its size."
"Paul, of Lake Jackson, managed to insert 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million into the bill, leading the Houston delegation, according to an analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally-mandated projects in the bill by the Houston Chronicle.
Take off the rose colored glasses.
And you’re not very funny for a comedian, more like a troll.
That moneys going to be spent anyway as it’s already part of the budget.
Don't be fooled by fake grandstanding on earmarks by phonies like McCain.
Stop making sense!
I understand what you are saying. If congress and the executive were all ron pauls we would have a problem.
However, they are not all ron pauls. He is a great influence and pull on the socialist/globalist powers around him in both parties. We need a libertarian cacus in the Republican party like Ron Paul to pants the GOP when they get too full of themselves. We need people who love the constitution and talks about it. We need people who hold the line.
Some say he is a hater. He is not that. He honestly has a constitutional ideology and that is a good and pure thing sorely missing from the political debate and from power.
Then, what's his beef on "fiscal responsibility?"
It's going to spent anyways, right?
It is pure hypocrisy to complain about spending, then contribute to it more than others.
How Ron Paulian
A perfect example of why we are laughed at and overrun: Too many hangers-on with no intellectual or debating capability whatsoever. Parrot, recite, parrot, that's all they can do.
How sad for the Republic.
Because earmarking that money ensures it’ll be used at a local level to benefit the taxpayers as opposed to, building a school in Baghdad that’s just going to get blown up anyway.
Still waiting for that proof of Paul voting for earmarks or an unbalanced budget in general....
Ron Paul’s support for the original resolution to invade Afghanistan was the right decision. His support faded quickly and his opposition today is well known. The fact remains. Paul blames America for 911, not the terroists.
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
Well, your dumb remarks aside.
Fact. Ron Paul blames America for 911, not the terrorists. If you remember, he said it at every debate opportunity during the GOP primaries of 2007.
What’s sad is your denial of the facts.
The GOP is filled with Paulistinians as they have already announced their intent to take over the party.
While they do it, but using party resources for Ron Paul following candidates, they contribute nothing back to the party, furthering weakening it and giving Democrats victories.
Play your hair splitting with someone else.
That he inserts them and accepts them speaks for itself, whether he actually votes them or not.
We know which of the three you are. tiny.
Isn’t that what all others do?
Again, why complain about spending then add to it yourself?
Thank you for making my point yet again.
Would you like to discuss an idea, or perhaps an event, or would you like to stay where you are most comfortable?
Paul agree with Obama? What are you smoking? Obama has FAILED to withdraw troops from Iraq. There are NOW 130K there, the same as when Obama took office. Moreover, Obama has INCREASED the number of troops in Afghanistan to a level HIGHER than the number ever proposed by Bush and McCain. Based on the facts, it seems that you agree more Obama than Paul does.
And the Bush/Obama policy of nation building and more and more troops in Afghanistan (which has not stopped a revived Taliban) since 2002 is working better because......?
>>> Noticing that savage tribesmen resent being bested by the White Western Gods isn’t “Blame America First”, it’s fundamental sociological and psychological fact. <<<
“Savage tribesmen”? LOL! To paraphrase Disraeli, when MY ancestors were brutal savages on an unknown island, the inhabitants of Afghanistan were highly civilized farmers, metalsmiths and traders of silk. Cut these folks some slack — 30 years that included a war with the Soviets, civil war and occupation by Al-Qaeda et al can make a mess of the social fabric.
>>> And just FYI, I think we should have gone nuclear in Afghanistan the first week of the war. <<<
As far as I can tell, I live in the USA, not Nazi Germany. The extermination of entire peoples is neither the official nor unofficial policy of MY country.
Perhaps you have missed the news of Obama undecided on whether or not to send more Troops to Afghanistan?
Let Afghanistan fall, likely Pakistan will follow from a resurrgent Taliban and Al Qaeda, giving them nukes!
Obama campaigned on withdrawing Troops from Iraq. Once in office, reality smacked him between the eyes.
Paul campaigned on withdrawing Troops too.
I don’t which is worse, devotees to Paul or Obama.
Neither are willing to see fault with either of your messiahs.
Neither has any sense of reality.
They are not men, they are Devo.
When "entire peoples" wish for, facilitate, and assist in genocide against your country, you should reconsider your perspective, and stop externalizing your sensitive nature.
Which world would be better? One where the Taliban ruled Earth, or one where Constitutional Republics kept Islam in check through fear until they withered and died?
Take a longer term perspective. All cultures are not equally valid or destined for longevity.
Ron Paul is not the president and never will be. But he's quite right about the fed and most domestic issues.
Anyone opposing his current efforts to audit the fed simply because he is nuts on foreign policy issues are letting unrelated differences of opinion obstruct a worthy cause which is being advocated by a guy who is equally worthy of considerable respect in this specific area.
He is one of 435 congressmen. He's not going to change our anti-terror policies by pushing to audit the fed.
Leiberman is generally right on war issues and is to be commended for that wisdom, but I would NOT vote for him either or support his liberal domestic policies.
Nobody is perfect (meaning agreeing with me) on all issues, so make use of valuable support on specific issues from anyone whose heart is in the specific noble fight - as is Paul's in the anti-fed fight.
He's already sent more after he took office. Bush and McCain had said that no more troops were needed back in 2008. The question he is deciding now is whether to send even more.
.... Obama campaigned on withdrawing Troops from Iraq. Once in office, reality smacked him between the eyes.
Hmmm...I keep hearing here that Iraqi democracy is vibrant and has the support of the people and that its army is capable. If so, why do they need 130K Americans to defend them?
A better explanation for keeping the 130K in Iraq is that Obama lied about withdrawing, just like nearly all other politicians. In any case, you now seem to admit that Obama's decision to keep 130K in Iraq shows him to be the polar opposite of Paul on this issue.
I know if I were President, I would never attack anyone until the congress had actually offically declared war, and I would warn them in advance that if they declared war I will use everything, EVERYTHING in our arsonal to win the war with the fewest casualties on our side and the maximum possible on their side in the shortest possible time for the least amount of money. So they should think REALLY hard before voting, because all bets are off once they declare war.