Ron Paul Launches Presidential Campaign, Tells Truth To Whoopi's View

Tyler Durden's picture

Well, it's official: Ron Paul has launched his 2012 presidential campaign. Per the National Journal: "Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, whose outspoken libertarian views and folksy style made him a cult hero during two previous presidential campaigns, will announce on Tuesday that he's going to try a third time. Sources close to Paul, who is in his 12th term in the House, said he will unveil an exploratory presidential committee, a key step in gearing up for a White House race. He will also unveil the campaign’s leadership team in Iowa, where the first votes of the presidential election will be cast in caucuses next year."


Paul, 75, ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, finishing with less than one half a percent of the vote. After more than a decade as a Republican congressman, Paul gave it another shot in the 2008 presidential election, gaining attention for being the only Republican candidate calling for the end to the war in Iraq and for his “money bomb” fundraising strategy, which brought in millions of dollars from online donors in single-day pushes.

Paul took 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses and 8 percent in New Hampshire’s primary. He finished second, with 14 percent of the vote, in the Nevada caucuses, and eventually finished fourth in the Republican nominating process with 5.6 percent of the total vote. Paul’s campaign book, The Revolution: A Manifesto also reached No. 1 on The New York Times best-seller list in 2008.

Unfortunately, with the ridiculous publicity stunt that is the parallel campaign of Trump, whose only redeeming feature is that he knows more about bankruptcy and nuisance value than any other human being alive, a feature that will come in very handy to the US over the next 5 years, it would appear that Paul's campaign has the usual snowball's chance in a corrupt 7th circle of hell... Which is sad, because Paul, with all his faults, really continues to be the only sane alternative to completel meltdown of this once great country.

That said, we hope Paul has more appearances such as this on The View, where he did not pander to his female hosts, and told the truth about many contentuous issues including the military industrial complex, planned parenthood, and the US outlook.

One piece of advice for Ron: stay away from Bruno please.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Aengrod's picture

Whats wrong with You America? Seriously.

macholatte's picture


Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Bahar are totally disgusting.

narapoiddyslexia's picture

What's wrong with America? I'll tell you in just two words.

Ridiculous, monkey-tribe religions.

Oops, that's three words. But you can imagine them all out in the woods at night, beating on their hollow logs in the light of the full moon, howling, cacaphonous, drunk.

That's America.

Forward History's picture

Really? Oh how convenient is the single source of blame for the easily swayed.

Consider that if maybe more had listened to a certain monkey-tribe religion's core beliefs, there might not have been the greed\envy\sloth debt bubble and the real-estate crash. It's hard to cook books when you truly obey the good book. I'm not saying it would have instantly prevented all this, but if you're on here day in and out decrying apathy, greed, corruption, and political pandering, you're basically taking issue with the same thing Christ does. Ironic, no?

You want to blame the "monkeys"? I'm a Christian, and I object to you calling human beings monkeys. Apes don't fashion half the bludgeons we do with anywhere near the enthusiasm. That's an insult to good apes everywhere, sir.

azusgm's picture

+1 from another Christian.

Matthew 7:12 - "So in everything, do unto others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

mfoste1's picture

religions are ponzi schemes....

Bolweevil's picture

...spirituality an investment

Michael's picture

I Love Dr Ronald Ernest Paul!

Michael's picture

Ron Paul ran for president in 2008 and look what happened; The Tea Party was born.

What happened when John McCain and Obama ran, NOTHING!

Who knows what will happen when Ron Paul runs in 2012, perhaps all incumbents will be thrown out of office and people will have confidence and trust in their elected officials for the first time since 1787.

Or maybe even something more historic?

FreedomGuy's picture

Can I suggest also that nothing good would have happened had McCain been elected, too? It would have been more of the status quo, samo, samo stuff we've seen for most all of my life. He (McCain) is one of the prototypical go-along, get-along Republicans that are routinely duped into compromising left. Virtually all of McCain's significant legislation has a Democrat attached.

Also, I would suggest that Obama has more to do with the start of the Tea Party but the roots of it come from Ron Paul type people and ideologies.

Michael's picture

I like reading all the defeatist prole attitudes in this thread. It is emblematic of what the American people have become.

Yes, this is my objective to make you think you have been defeated by the super mega wealthy elite. Keep thinking that way.

The super mega wealthy elite brainwashing is virtually complete. Everyone has a defeatist attitude now.

The super mega wealthy elite have beaten your brains to a pulp and you can never form a cognitive thought of ever being equal tho them.

This is everything the mainstream media has taught you.

Your MSM education is worthless!

Frein's picture

Those core beliefs have nothing to do with a "good" book. I guess it helps to pick and choose the nice parts and ignore the contradictions and other junk.

Kopfjager's picture

They like to pretend they have a monopoly on morality.  

asdasmos's picture

20. A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows. – Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

19. Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. – Anonymous

18. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. – Steven Weinberg

17. Since the Bible and the church are obviously mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust them to tell us where we are going? – Anonymous

16. The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike. – Delos B. McKown

15. Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer. – Anonymous

14. Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the Creator of human intelligence. – Anonymous

13. What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. – Christopher Hitchens

12. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. – Stephen Roberts

11. It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand. – Mark Twain

10. Atheism is a non-prophet organization. – George Carlin

9. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power but absolute power is corrupt only in the hands of the absolutely faithful. – Anonymous

8. Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense. – Chapman Cohen

7. When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. – Robert Pirsig

6. Animals do not have gods, they are smarter than that. – Ronnie Snow

5. Most religions prophecy the end of the world and then consistently work together to ensure that these prophecies come true. – Anonymous

4. Religions are like pills, which must be swallowed whole without chewing. – Anonymous

3. If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul. – Isaac Asimov

2. Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. – Seneca the Younger

1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? – Epicurus

FreedomGuy's picture

I could refute virtually every post but frankly atheists bore me these days. What I would sincerely ask is: When the atheists are in charge, how well have they done in improving the lot of mankind?

What is that score compared with theists? Do some theists do better than others?

Jesus said, "You will know a tree by it's fruit."

asdasmos's picture

Here come the Lambs..... chances are you all might be from different sects of christianity.


Ok, now tell me, which one is THE sect?







Starting to see the bullshit yet?


Or better yet, that you were born into that religion. You think that was 'god's will'?


What about the people who are born into islam, judaism, scientology, buddhism etc.....? Are they just people waiting to 'see the light' as well?


All of them are claiming to be THE religion. So which is it?.....


They all hinge on the 'you must believe' bullshit that is rammed down everyone's throat. It is all the same shit, just different clothes, shrines etc....

asdasmos's picture

Strike a nerve did I?


Why don't you give it an answer, set the record straight. Or is the line of thinking a little above your usual line of thought?

MurderNeverWasLove's picture

Not the place for this.  Go dumb down some other board with your cut and paste list of whatever.  What is your point besides trolling?

RexZeedog's picture

I see that you are focusing your so-called atheist animosity towards Christian denominations and not towards other people of faith. Is that because you hate Christians? If so, you are not being intellectually honest. A true Atheist should be opposed to the beliefs of all people who believe in God.

Also, the word "Atheist" comes from the Greek word for godless, so it seems to me you need a new name. What is the point of defining yourself by what you don't believe in?

Frankly, it seems like you are trying to prove a negative, which from a logical standpoint, is impossible.

Suffice it to say, your comments today reinforce once again for me that most so-called "Atheists" are nothing more than anti-Christian bigots who hate the Christian concept of God and also hate those who love Jesus.

I am sorry to see that you are so resentful of Christians that you seek out ways to try and provoke them. And interestingly enough, the stronger the faith of the Christian, the less reactive their replies to you will be.

For this reason, your past bad experiences are biased due to sampling errors. When a weak Christian reacts in anger to you, you come away thinking that's how Christian are, but in fact they are not.

In fact, most Christians who've walked the path for a while would be sad for you (as I am) not angry.

In any case, let's sum up:

1) The term "Atheist" is an oxymoron as commonly used because most "Athiests" hate Christians chiefly, and other people of faith to a lesser degree and actually hate the idea of God (as opposed to not believing it).

2) An intelectually honest Atheist would not mock people, but would reason with them - out of genuine concern that they are believing in something which (acording to the Atheist), does not exist.

3) Jesus loves you.

4) Have a nice daye.

faustian bargain's picture

The rest of us intellectually honest atheists are staying out of it, because really, nothing that you believe has any bearing on my life. (Until it does, and then: watch out theocrats.)

FreedomGuy's picture

You atheists have a common theme. You take 10 seconds and two line comments and essentially say "You explain to me..." followed by expletives. How about this. You put on your big boy pants and go find the answer yourself? How about you look into yourself and see why you fundamentally hate theology? If you can even get past that one, then go do some research with a little humility. If you do it on your own with your own genius you won't have anything rammed down your throat now will you? I know. It's that other guy. However, you are free to explore Truth as you wish. Isn't that why you are here on ZH? You see lots of different economic and governmental theories here and you have to discern and choose. That's the way of life. Rarely do any of you do that. God or chance chemical reactions gave you a mind. Go use it. You prefer the dismissive approach. Statists use the same approach by the way to rule you.

Pearls and.....??? Now what was that quote?

asdasmos's picture

You theists have a common theme. You take logic and twist it.

pan-the-ist's picture

Do as you're told soldier, don't question.

asdasmos's picture

You are sidelining the issue with such a poor argument? How pitiful......


Then just refute post #1. I would like to see you try.

FreedomGuy's picture

I just wrote a substantial rebuttal but a stray finger on the laptop eliminated it. Makes me want to use bad words.

Let me say that the quotations above are in fact witty and are useful in challenging theology. However, most are based on the observation of common fallible men and not refutations or even confrontations of deeper theological works. There is also the nearly invisible assumption that theists are idiots and atheists much smarter. It is actually the same assumption statists use to rule you. I read Dawkins "The God Delusion" and it was so specious, puerile and arrogant that I could only do about half of it. I saw him on TV and realized the man behind the work.

Put Twain, Dawkins, Epicurus up against Augustine, Aquinas, and one of my favorites, Francis Schaeffer (How Shall We Then Live). Punditry and sarcasm will evaporate. At a minimum there would be respect. Great intellect exists in many religions. I prefer the Western Christian religion in general because of it's historical roots, ability to withstand critique and rational aspects.

What should give an atheist some pause is to realize that our way of life, our Constitution and ultimately the relative prosperity we enjoy are built upon a culture that is built upon a theology. We get the fruits of that. My questions posed above are not merely jest or joust. You have to answer those questions if you hope to progress to something better.

Let me briefly take on Epicurus...with trepidation.

I suggest to you that Epicurus has a flawed idea of what God, His methods and purposes are for men. Analogy speeds up understanding so try this one even with its shortcomings.

Let's say you are facing an Army obstacle course. I will presume you have at least seen one on TV. Your life is this course. You are appointed a path with many obstacles or trials. They look imposing and in your mind are evil. They may in fact defeat you. However, you run them and negotiate them as best you can having had some instruction on how to do that. You will even get instruction along the way. You will still find it difficult to do in reality. The drill instructor will watch your progress and those around you. He may even seem harsh at times and other times may be encouraging. You may need the help of other participants to overcome the obstacles. You may fail at some, barely get through some and sail over others that seem easy to you. You may even try to run around a few or take your own path if possible. The point is that even though the course is hot, dirty, painful, challenging and uncertain, it is all for your good and you will look back with some pride at least at some parts if you negotiate it well.

I suggest that the purpose of this life is to live it not avoid it. It is part of why suicide may be a sin. That is quitting. It is not merely about avoiding evil but confronting and overcoming it. Evil and what seems evil is as much a part of life as good. You really cannot have and appreciate one without the other. Your appointed purpose is to take your skills and gifts and negotiate life perfecting your soul/spirit along the way. At the end of the course you will get a review and score, including from yourself. In some theologies you may get to run it again with a new obstacle course. In that context, Epicurus' observation falls short of an even larger picture.

I am not a trained or degreed theologian but I have spent much time in study and contemplation and that is my short answer from my study. I hope it at least offers some mental exercise for you and others.

asdasmos's picture

"I suggest to you that Epicurus has a flawed idea of what God, His methods and purposes are for men."


That is your whole statement on why he is not correct? Not much and your anology needs a little work.


Lets say for the moment, you are correct. (Only for a slight moment) I'll take from my other post.


What sect of christianity are you from? Out of them all I assume you believe yours is THE sect?





etc..... Starting to see a hint of bullshit yet?


Or better yet, that you were born into that religion. You think that was 'god's will'?


What about the people who are born into islam, judaism, scientology, buddhism etc.....? Are they just people waiting to 'see the light' as well?


All of them are claiming to be THE religion. So which is it?.....


They all hinge on the 'you must believe' bullshit that is rammed down everyone's throat. It is all the same shit, just different clothes, shrines etc....


Remember the onus is on religion, whichever it may be, to prove it's existence. The atheist claims nothing.


Go read some of Hume's work on skepticism, you might find it very insightful.

FreedomGuy's picture

I have written papers on Hume, and Locke and others.

asdasmos's picture

The fact that you have done means what?


Anyways, you seemed to have missed the point in the last post? Care to comment or obfuscate the issue further?

Anonymouse's picture

Like most atheists, you attack, make allegations, and raise questions (most of which are valid, but seem ill-informed).

But have you investigated those questions or just parrot what other atheists have said.

If you would have Christians read Hume, et al (fair enough), I would suggest you reciprocate.

Read CS Lewis.  Read Norm Geisler / Frank Turek's "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist".  Both easy and entertaining reads.  Both investigate from a logical (if biased) point of view.  Norm Geisler has much weightier books as well, such as his Systematic Theology series.  But inbetween the two, his "When Skeptics Ask" is helpful as well.  Usually, but admittedly not always, putting to bed many concerns that trouble people.

Better yet, read the Bible and learn the context of some of the things that bother you.  You will find most have an entirely different meaning than what you might have heard.

Seems fair.  Quid pro quo.

asdasmos's picture

I have read Aquinas, Clarke, Berkeley, a few others and sections of the bible. At least of what I can handle. From the book truth to the book of intrepretation, it all is just nonsense, not a great story. Also there seems to be many a contradiction.


Trouble is we are still dancing around the main issue. Again I ask. Care to comment on my earlier thought or obfuscate the issue further?

Anonymouse's picture

Not sure what "the issue" is.  Apparently it is not Ron Paul, so it's all a bit OT (oooh, there he goes shoving his religion down our throats...).

If "the issue" is your #1 item, the existence of evil, the answer is quite simple.  Free will.  Fre will to do good or not.  Without free will, doing good is meaningless.  But with it, doign good is admirable

I have things to do, so not interested in debate tonight.  Just wanted to say that if suggest Christians read Hume and others, you should read some Geisler.

mworden's picture

and then read Your God is too Small

superflyguy's picture

You say the atheist claims nothing yet here you are claiming religion is BS.

It takes very little reading to get the answers to your questions but it seems you already have your opinion so you only read what proves it.

You could easily find out the difference between fake religions and Christianity if you really wanted to bother but you don't. It's easier to claim something and have others defend. It makes you feel smarter, superior. But it also makes you clueless in eyes of those that know more.

It's why I never classify myself as atheist, because most atheists are idiots.


asdasmos's picture

Alright, lets break this down for the simple minded.


"You say the atheist claims nothing yet here you are claiming religion is BS."


Think of an atheist as someone being told by a person (the theist) that he just saw a purple elephant fly across the sky. He has no way of proving it and that you have to believe it. The atheist then calls the clear BS. Somehow it is different with religion.

More here:


"It takes very little reading to get the answers to your questions but it seems you already have your opinion so you only read what proves it.

You could easily find out the difference between fake religions and Christianity if you really wanted to bother but you don't. It's easier to claim something and have others defend. It makes you feel smarter, superior. But it also makes you clueless in eyes of those that know more."


Right, and what would those differences be? (fake religions, I lol'd, you are forgetting one though). This is a trivial issue for me, it is hard to see people so deluded by such archaic belief systems. You are the one claiming something, I am merely questioning what you hold to be truth. And quite frankly it does not hold up. You seem to hold your ignorance in such high regard.


You are the who feels superior here, I guess it is because you clearly 'know more'.

I Am Ben's picture

can reason prove the existence of a diety?

pan-the-ist's picture

Reason cannot prove the existence of anything, and it certainly cannot prove the non-existence of a nothing; that being the case, we have to make do with what our senses tell us about the world and get on the best we can.

RexZeedog's picture

"The atheist claims nothing"

Not logically accurate, nor true.

The Atheist claims there is no God.

That is an assertion of logical certainty, one which you back up only with the Logical Fallacy of the appeal to authority. You can read about the flaws in your logic here:

Your logic can not be rebutted because it is flawed logic.

Furthermore, if you allow Appeals to Authority as a basis for argument, then none of your historical quotes are valid as a referrence owing to the fact that Napoleon said the following: "History is a set of lies agreed upon"

Now if it's true (in and of itself), that history is a set of lies agreed upon, then how do we know Napoleon said it? The answer is we don't and if the premise of that quote is true, we can't know it.

The point here is that people have to choose what they believe and most beliefs can't be proved.

- Can you prove that you love pizza?

- Can you prove that your wife loves you?

- Can you prove that Vanilla is better than Chocolate?

People can take polls of opinion and they can measure some facts (only those facts which lead back to measurable substances and forces can be measured), but everything else is conjecure, calculation or extrapolation.

Knowledge is not quite as easy to know as you make it sound and your flippant dimsissals of those who disagree with you betray an inability or unwillingness to dialog with others.

Frankly, I am puzzled by your eforts here and fail to see what you hope to accomplish by taunting others.

pan-the-ist's picture

Theists claim there exists a god, Atheists do not claim there exists a god, this is very different from the positive assertion "there is no god."

This is the key to your lack of understanding of the atheist position.

RexZeedog's picture

No, you are mistaken. The term "Atheist" means exactly what I said it does. I refer you to the dictionary:


a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

1580–90; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ism

Suffice it to say, your response to me is indicative of why no rational discussion is possible with most Atheists: The bulk of them (like yourself) do not even know what the word Atheist means.

pan-the-ist's picture

What does 'disbelief' mean?  Perhaps you should study the language child.

Further does it really matter?  Occham's razor: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.  Atheists choose to eliminate one unecessary entity.

RexZeedog's picture

Typical of an Atheist, when you've been proved incorrect about something, you insult the other person - in this case, calling me a "child".

The facts are crystal clear and can be found in any dictionary; Atheists actively deny that God exists "a person who denies..".

I showed you the actual definition from the dictionary plain as day, and yet you refuse to concede.

Suffice it to say, I have won this round and you know it.

Anonymouse's picture

You are describing agniostics, not atheists.

Do you allow that there can be a god?  I'm not asking if you are saying there is, just whether it is possible.

If yes, but you don't think so, that is an agnostic position.  You are saying you don't know, even if you suspect there isn't one.

If no, then that is an atheist position.  And it is a claim that there is no god.  That claim is made without proof. 

But to make an assertion and then claim it is not an assertion is intellectually dishonest.  And it would require proof every bit as much as a theist's claim that there is a god.  Because it is an assertion of fact.

Granted you may not be able to prove that a god does not exist, just as a theist may not be able to prove that a god does exist.  But it does require that you be willing to provide some sort of argument (logical or factual) for your stance.

Now if you want to avoid a requirement of proof, you should claim to be an agnostic, not an atheist. And of course, if you truly are agnostic, you should as well.

But of course in doing so, you are making an implicit claim that there can be a god.  And if you allow there can be, you should refrain from calling it non-sense unless you are willing to make the argument as to why (while there might be a god, you do not believe it).

The point is that this is not pure semantics.  It is that the definitions matter, particularly when someone is trying to get the benefits of agnosticism (avoiding the argument) while simultaneously claiming the benefits of atheism (reserving the right to ridicule theists of any flavor).

You are being intellectually dishonest and logically inconsistent.

TumblingDice's picture

I see that you have invested some time into the study of theology which is a damn shame. A more productive direction of a functional and diligent human brain would have been much better. I know that my response might not discourage you now but hopefully you can look past the confrontational approach here and note that we are both looking for truth. It was the dialectic approach of compromise that thwarted the first human inquiry into atheism so maybe its spirit can work the other way around.

Great intellect exists in many religions.

Aquinas used faulty logic. I haven't read the other guys but let me just point out that religion has done the most to stunt human scientific progress than any other force. Maybe you don't like science, but it does more to make your life better than praying.

Constitution and ultimately the relative prosperity we enjoy are built upon a culture that is built upon a theology

Nope. The constitution is the product of the bold step to separate church and state. You do realize that monarchy was based on theology. The whole divine mandate was a religious thing. It was because of our abandonment of that idea that we were able to prosper as a democratic society.

The last half of your post just illustrates the framing of life that religion imposes on the people that subscribe to it: strife, obstacles and teams. First of all I would like to point out that those last three paragraphs have no mention of God or religion. Your sentence,

I suggest that the purpose of this life is to live it not avoid it.

and the following paragraph are refuting a straw-man argument. I would proffer a different analogy than the obstacle course. Imagine you are listening to the greatest song you have ever heard. You simply can't trace the source of this song. There are explanations and evidence showing that the song is just a product of the world around you. Others propose that the song has a purpose, that it is made by someone and that this person wants you to do things in a certain may. they tell you that they represent this person. You can dedicate your life to the song, the people that purport to represent its creator, the people who define good and evil for you... or you can just dance.

FreedomGuy's picture

To not study any theology is to dismiss all of human history. Most atheists start with dismissal (but not all). That's why they get so much of the other stuff wrong and end up with authoritarian states.

However, let me say that it is nice that you at least took a little time to address some ideas. Better than most. I have a fundamental belief that truth always stands up to challenge and critique. It is it's own proof over time.

I believe it was Locke who essentially said that men may not know all truth but they can recognize it when presented with it. I hold this as a core belief.