TexasCHLforum.com

...take a few minutes and read the text to this speech. Ron Paul haters, will still be hating...
Ron Paul supporters, will still be saying wake up America....
more than a few items of concern? I think so.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul388.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ron Paul is an interesting person who I neither hate nor love. I view him as a 'character' in the sense that a few other congressmen are also 'characters'. Just not plain vanilla. What is interesting to me this week though is a comment made by a radio voice this weekend in Dallas regarding Ron Paul and his known dislike for Social Security. Seems, per the reporter, that he recently had a birthday which qualified him for benefits, so one of the most vocal voices opposing Social Security has now signed up and is awaiting his first check. Just seems to be a little hypocritical for the voice of Libertarianism, but then, he is entitled.

gdanaher wrote:Ron Paul is an interesting person who I neither hate nor love. I view him as a 'character' in the sense that a few other congressmen are also 'characters'. Just not plain vanilla. What is interesting to me this week though is a comment made by a radio voice this weekend in Dallas regarding Ron Paul and his known dislike for Social Security. Seems, per the reporter, that he recently had a birthday which qualified him for benefits, so one of the most vocal voices opposing Social Security has now signed up and is awaiting his first check. Just seems to be a little hypocritical for the voice of Libertarianism, but then, he is entitled.

I don't hate the man, but I do think he is a cranky old uncle, and he has demonstrated hypocrisy as a Congressman on more than one occasion. He has an understandable problem with congressional pork going to other districts, but he seems very benign when it comes to pork coming to his own district. A principled stance would be: "No Pork. Period. Even when it would benefit my district."

He's just another politician. Maybe he holds a minority view in Congress which tends to favor the taxpayer over the spender, but he is himself a spender when it comes to his own district......where he goes to get reelected. So in the end, fancy rhetoric aside, he is just another politician. I don't hate him for it. That's just what they do. It would be like hating a shark for being a shark. Back in the Founders' days, it was considered unseemly to try to hold onto office for too long, and that is the difference between a public servant, and a politician.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

gdanaher wrote:Ron Paul is an interesting person who I neither hate nor love. I view him as a 'character' in the sense that a few other congressmen are also 'characters'. Just not plain vanilla. What is interesting to me this week though is a comment made by a radio voice this weekend in Dallas regarding Ron Paul and his known dislike for Social Security. Seems, per the reporter, that he recently had a birthday which qualified him for benefits, so one of the most vocal voices opposing Social Security has now signed up and is awaiting his first check. Just seems to be a little hypocritical for the voice of Libertarianism, but then, he is entitled.

I don't hate the man, but I do think he is a cranky old uncle, and he has demonstrated hypocrisy as a Congressman on more than one occasion. He has an understandable problem with congressional pork going to other districts, but he seems very benign when it comes to pork coming to his own district. A principled stance would be: "No Pork. Period. Even when it would benefit my district."

He's just another politician. Maybe he holds a minority view in Congress which tends to favor the taxpayer over the spender, but he is himself a spender when it comes to his own district......where he goes to get reelected. So in the end, fancy rhetoric aside, he is just another politician. I don't hate him for it. That's just what they do. It would be like hating a shark for being a shark. Back in the Founders' days, it was considered unseemly to try to hold onto office for too long, and that is the difference between a public servant, and a politician.

I read somewhere that it was okay because Paul was trying to get back the money taxed from his district. Though that's a loosing mans game. The whole state of Texas only gets 70 cent for ever dollar that goes to the fed.

I liked Paul until he just flat gave up the election. Zero campaigning in Texas and not even a visit to his home district during primaries? Texas was the only state where he had a home court advantage over rommeny. What ever happens between rommeny/Obama in Nov I fear we will see Hilary in 2016. /shudder

psijac wrote:I liked Paul until he just flat gave up the election. Zero campaigning in Texas and not even a visit to his home district during primaries?

First, Dr. Paul did campaign in Texas. He spoke to thousands all over the state, including over 3,000 attendees at the A&M rally in College Station. Anyway, by the time Texas held its election, the primary was statistically over. It would have been a waste of money to do a full-on campaigning blitz.

Unfortunately, Pork is how the system works presently. It's only pork if it's not in your district. Every congressman has one job, and that is to look out for the interests of his constituency among the dealings in the capitol. As long as we send the bulk of our tax money to DC and allow them to dole it out back to us, we need someone with some spine making sure we get our share. And by the way, work on doing away with that crap and returning control to the states. Paul is as good as any in that regard.

TheArmedFarmer wrote:

psijac wrote:I liked Paul until he just flat gave up the election. Zero campaigning in Texas and not even a visit to his home district during primaries?

First, Dr. Paul did campaign in Texas. He spoke to thousands all over the state, including over 3,000 attendees at the A&M rally in College Station. Anyway, by the time Texas held its election, the primary was statistically over. It would have been a waste of money to do a full-on campaigning blitz.

He also spoke to several thousand in Ft Worth.

APynckel wrote:

TheArmedFarmer wrote:

psijac wrote:I liked Paul until he just flat gave up the election. Zero campaigning in Texas and not even a visit to his home district during primaries?

First, Dr. Paul did campaign in Texas. He spoke to thousands all over the state, including over 3,000 attendees at the A&M rally in College Station. Anyway, by the time Texas held its election, the primary was statistically over. It would have been a waste of money to do a full-on campaigning blitz.

He also spoke to several thousand in Ft Worth.

I went to that rally. Very interesting. People from all walks of life. Old dressed down hippies, young people, business men in suit & tie, parents with kids etc.
A well behaved, enthusiastic crowd. A crowd that wants a return to a Constitutional form of government. A crowd that is disgusted with our current governments SOP. Hit the Railhead before, hit the rally, nice cruise home.....I enjoyed myself.