Ron Paul On Elizabeth Warren: 'She's A Socialist'

Texas Rep. Ron Paul called Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren a "socialist" Tuesday in a series of Republican presidential candidate interviews hosted by ABC News and Yahoo!.

Warren drew attention earlier this fall for a video of her speaking to supporters refuting Republican arguments that Democrats were waging "class warfare."

She said: "No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own -- nobody." She said even a factory owner who became wealthy used public goods like roads, police and fire, and public education. She added: "Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

ABC News' Terry Moran asked Paul why Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren was wrong in her comments. "Because she's a socialist," said the libertarian-leaning House member. He added, "her whole argument is absolutely wrong" because "governments are always destructive in the creation of wealth," according to The Hill. When pressed on whether public education was socialist, Paul said, "When the state runs things, that's a socialist thing." He added, "I preach home schooling and private schooling and competition."

The Huffington Post reported that Warren was recently interrupted by a Tea Party supporter who called her a "socialist whore" at a speech in Brockton, Mass. She said later that she felt sorry for him for being out of work, and said she was not mad at him. " There's someone else pre-packaging that poison -- and that's who makes me angry," she said.

Republicans have done their best to obstruct the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that Warren dreamed up and launched for President Obama. Currently, they're blocking the nomination of Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to lead it. Forty-four Senators signed a letter in May opposing confirmation of any CFPB head without changes to the Dodd-Frank financial reform passed in 2010. Cordray's nomination has passed the Senate Banking Committee but has stalled in the full Senate.

More on Elizabeth Warren:

Loading Slideshow

• Introduces Financial Product Safety Commission

  Elizabeth Warren <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/10/financial-product-safety_n_173691.html" target="_hplink">announced</a> a bill creating a Financial Product Safety Commission with House and Senate Democrats in March 2009. The body was designed to have oversight over mortgages and other financial instruments to protect consumers against predatory practices. She said if the agency had existed before the subprime collapse then "there would have been millions of families who got tangled in predatory mortgages who never would have gotten them." HuffPost's Ryan Grim <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/10/financial-product-safety_n_173691.html" target="_hplink">reported</a>: <blockquote>Without all these toxic assets on banks' balance sheets, the institutions wouldn't be on the brink of collapse and the recession would be more manageable. "Consumer financial products were the front end of the destabilization of the American economic system." Sen. Charles Schumer's cosponsorship of the bill is notable because of his proximity to Wall Street. The bill's merit, the New York Democrat said, is that it regulates the actual financial product rather than the company producing it.</blockquote>

• Geithner Opposes Her Heading CFPB

  Tim Geithner expressed opposition to her nomination for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/15/tim-geithner-opposes-nomi_n_647691.html" target="_hplink">reported</a> HuffPost's Shahien Nasiripour. Geithner thought Warren's views on the big banks and Wall St. were too tough. Warren's oversight of the Treasury department as a watchdog for TARP apparently irked Geithner, agressively <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz7ruJw6byQ" target="_hplink">questioning him</a> during Congressional hearings: <blockquote>While her grilling of Geithner in September, over what members of Congress have called the "backdoor bailout" of Wall Street through AIG, inspired the "squirm" video, just last month Warren pressed Geithner on the administration's lackluster foreclosure-prevention plan, Making Home Affordable. Criticizing him for Treasury's failure to keep families in their homes, she questioned Treasury's commitment to homeowners.</blockquote>

• Ready For A Fight

  Elizabeth Warren <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/03/fight-for-the-cfpa-is-a-d_n_483707.html" target="_hplink">reiterated her desire</a> for a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency to HuffPost's Shahien Nasiripour: <blockquote>"My first choice is a strong consumer agency," the Harvard Law professor and federal bailout watchdog said in an interview with the Huffington Post. "My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor."</blockquote>

• Named Interim Chief Of CFPB

  In September of 2010, HuffPost's Ryan Grim <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/13/elizabeth-warren-interim-cfpb-chief-consideration_n_715457.html" target="_hplink">reported</a> that Elizabeth Warren was being considered as a candidate for interim director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Days later the announcement was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/white-house-taps-warren_n_715291.html" target="_hplink">official</a>. The move allowed Warren to set up the groundwork for the agency immediately without risking a GOP filibuster of her nomination, a response that seemed certain giving the <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/09/15/opposition_mounts_for_interim_appointment/" target="_hplink">public opposition expressed</a> by some Republican senators. When it came time to put forth an appointment for a longterm CFPB chief, Warren was overlooked, partially because she was seen as unfeasible, but also, HuffPost's Shahien Nasiripour <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/republican-opposition-to-elizabeth-warren_n_902165.html" target="_hplink">reported</a>, because she was a divisive figure within the Obama administration: <blockquote>Ultimately, Warren wanted the job, allies said. And near-united opposition from Senate Republicans -- 44 of them signed a letter saying they'd oppose any nominee -- should have made it easier for Obama to nominate her, since the Republicans publicly said they wouldn't support anyone for the role. Instead, the Republicans made it easy for the White House to deflect questions about the administration's lack of support for Warren. Asked how she squared the administration's public statements with its private ones, Warren declined. "I really have to say, I'm just not there. I'm not in the intricacies of the political part of this, and I can't comment," Warren said Monday. "The truth is I don't know anything about it."</blockquote>

• Chats With HuffPost About Bureau

  In October 2010, shortly after being tasked with building the groundwork for the CFPB, Warren stopped by HuffPost to chat with Ryan Grim and Shahien Nasiripour "This is the first real agency we've built in the 21st century -- well, there's Homeland Security, but one for the people. And it means we ought to think differently," said Warren. "The government can talk to people and people can talk to the government differently than when the Consumer Product Safety Commission was built, or when the FDA was built. And if we do this right, that should change the whole dynamic of who this agency really is." HuffPost's Ryan Grim <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/elizabeth-warren-consumer_1_n_754026.html" target="_hplink">reported</a>: <blockquote>By gathering information, contracts and documents from homeowners and consumers, and allowing watchdog groups and individual concerned citizens access to those documents, the agency can exponentially expand the manpower it has to review the operations of banks and lenders. The goal would be to become aware of a particularly fraudulent practice before it is rampant and insulates itself in the financial services industry.</blockquote> For full video of the interview, click <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/elizabeth-warren-consumer_1_n_754026.html" target="_hplink">here</a>.

• GOP Calls Her A Liar

  In May, Warren was called to testify before a House subcommittee and defend the merits of the CFPB. Some of the questions submitted by Republican representatives appeared confused and at times aggressive, leaving Warren to correct them on some basic facts about the actual purpose of the bureau. HuffPost's Mike McCauliff <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/elizabeth-warren-liar-gop-facts-cfpb_n_866505.html" target="_hplink">relays</a> one particularly contentious moment: <blockquote>The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), began the proceedings by suggesting Warren had lied to the committee in a previous hearing that had questioned the CFPB's role in offering advice to state attorneys general negotiating a settlement with abusive mortgage servicers. At the time, Warren said she was proud her agency had been able to help, at the request of the treasury secretary. But McHenry brought up the memo again, suggesting it showed that she hid a larger role in the negotiations from Congress. "This is our job, and we're trying to do our job, to be helpful to other agencies, and to help those agencies to hold those who break the law accountable," Warren said, repeating that she was proud of the work.</blockquote>

• Announces Senate Run

  Elizabeth Warren <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/elizabeth-warren-senate-massachusetts_n_960510.html" target="_hplink">announced</a> on September 14, 2011 that she was running for the United States Senate seat currently held by Scott Brown (R-Mass.) "After listening to people all across our state who know that we can do better, folks who are frustrated like I am that Washington just doesn't get it, I'm running for the Senate so I can fight every day for Massachusetts families," Warren <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/senate-announcement_b_961624.html" target="_hplink">wrote on The Huffington Post</a>.

• Fundraising

  One month into her campaign to secure the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Scott Brown in Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren raised $3.15 million, largely <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/elizabeth-warren-raises-3_n_1003836.html" target="_hplink">from small donations</a>. According to a campaign email, 96 percent of donations were under $100. "These are pretty amazing numbers for our first official finance report, raised in a very short period of time," she said in an email to supporters. Warren's campaign has also attracted <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/18/elizabeth-warren-builds-s_n_1018334.html" target="_hplink">large liberal donors</a>, including colleagues from Harvard and well-known liberal donors like George Soros, Barbra Streisand, and DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg. Warren <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/elizabeth-warren-scott-brown-fundraising_n_1199680.html " target="_hplink">raised</a> an impressive $5.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2011. In early January, the candidate's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/elizabeth-warren-money-bomb-fundraising_n_1208511.html?ref=mostpopular" target="_hplink">money bomb</a> pulled in more than $100,000 in just one weekend.

• Historic Agreement

  Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/elizabeth-warren-scott-brown-attack-ads_n_1223574.html" target="_hplink">signed a pledge</a> to curb third-party attack ads. If either campaign breaks the agreement, they would donate half the cost of the outside ad to a charity of their opponent's choice. "This may not work," <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/david-catanese/2012/01/warren-this-may-not-work-112119.html" target="_hplink">Warren said in an email to supporters</a>. "But there's enough at stake to make it worthwhile to try to take back this election."

Comments

[visose]

09:01 PM on 11/19/2011

Exagerating a bit her argument, but keeping the fallacy of it. If she was a North Korean politician: "...so you have built something useful in your spare time, good for you. God bless, but while you were working on this project who do you think gave you your food, your clothing, your house, your electricity, your water, your furniture..... I'm afraid you must give it all back. How do you think the next generation will be able to eat and shelter themselves while they try to build something."

[leonel]

06:02 AM on 11/15/2011

She is one of the most sane politicians around in this country and a preview of future politics.

[stopspending]

09:54 PM on 11/14/2011

Warren believes that because a "rich" person used roads and public property, they should pay a large chunk of their wealth the those that have nothing. The have nothings use the same roads, schools, etc that the rich do but those resources did nothing to help them become wealthy just as they did little or nothing to help the rich man become rich. To take from the rich man just to give to the poor man because the poor man wants it is called socialism. Socialism, communism, dictatorships, have not worked will not work. If you give to people who do not earn things they will stop producing. If you take too much from those that produce, they will see no reason to continue busting their but to produce just to have it given to those that do not produce. Always happens, always will no matter how ideal socialism seems.

[middleCmusic]

11:45 PM on 11/14/2011

Yes, roads don't help poor people become wealthy because they're not using them to efficiently ship products halfway across the country! Duh! They do help the people using them for shipment however. Those roads were built with taxpayer money - the majority of which came from the less well-off.

No one is suggesting that a rich person shouldn't keep a very large part of their earnings. Ideally, everyone would be taxed the same amount. But it was decided that the extremely impoverished, who already can barely put food on the table (you think that's an exaggeration? look up some poverty statistics).

Think back just a year ago to when the taxpayers bailed out the banks. The CEOs just gave themselves bonuses! With our money! The problem is that very little of what Wall Street has done to wreck our economy (and yes they did it knowingly, with huge profits) was actually criminal. However it is all unethical enough that all of Wall Street's CEOs would be kicked out if they were in a public office. Unfortunately, there is very little regulation of Wall Street - Dodd-Frank was supposed to change that, but contrary to what many conservatives might think, it hasn't done anything yet, because it was stalled by Congress.

[middleCmusic]

11:46 PM on 11/14/2011

Sorry, mean to say

"But it was decided that the extremely impoverish­ed, who already can barely put food on the table (you think that's an exaggerati­on? look up some poverty statistics­) should pay a smaller share, because they can't afford to pay any more."

[SpikeGCHjr]

07:54 PM on 11/14/2011

He's right...she is a socialist, pure and simple. Nuff said!

[kfdan]

05:56 PM on 11/14/2011

I personally like the consistency of Ron Paul but believe that he does not offer anything positive if society is to go forward. I like him in the same way I liked the simplicity of Goldwater. Neither Paul or Goldwater's ideas will control the problems and damage created by the greed of the rich. We have a very simple problem ... the banks own Washington and the political message. Let's face it ... we built the U.S. economy on the New Deal after W.W.2 because the banks were regulated and could not engage in speculation without paying the piper when they failed. That is the primary condition that created a stable financial order. Democrats and Republicans alike need to get away from silly concepts like socialism is bad. American socialism has proven to be productive and that is why Ron Paul does not offer a forward moving process! Warren on the other hand sees clearly that without proper regulation, as provided in the New Deal, corporations will run us all off a cliff and then, pick up the pieces on the cheap ... creating the same scenario that brought the world into the last 2 great wars!

[TSmith2000]

10:39 PM on 11/15/2011

I support the intent of this post, but you are way off target in understanding the problem. Banks own Washington and the political message. You have this part correct. However, Ron Paul is the only politician willing to address the problem; his political objective is to break up this racket by auditing (thus exposing) and then abolishing the head of the spider, the Federal Reserve Bank. If you can agree with nothing else Ron Paul stands for, this alone is reason enough to support him, based on your understanding of the problem.

To wit, banks are writing the very regulations meant to check them and are making the laws. This is the scam. Any regulations need go through their clearing houses for approval, which is why the Obama administration is the most heavily laden with Wall Street interests, and why the solutions that intuitively seem right (stricter regulations) are absolutely wrong. The solution is to reform the monetary system and end the monopoly enjoyed by the banking cabal of issuing the nation's currency. If we are successful at dismantling the monopoly of issuing the currency, unbridled speculation gone awry, in this new milieu, will literally cease to exist, as the banks that do so unsuccessfully will fall flat on their face and cease to exist.

[kfdan]

05:56 AM on 11/16/2011

As I said ... I like Ron Paul but here's the rub ... the FED and the Bank of England (two private banking cartels rolled into one ... feeding each other ... and feeding off the public) have the international monetary system sewed up. Any attempt to destroy one will have to weaken or destroy the other ... otherwise, the existing wing of the cartel will destroy any country that gets in the way. That's the problem with Ron Paul's thinking ... he doesn't realize or hasn't at least publicly stated that he understands the depth of the problem facing the nation. He'd have to have the vision of Lincoln and do what Lincoln did to begin dismantling the present financial elite's grip on money and we all know what happened to Lincoln !!! p.s. ... the super financial elite do not have any problems using any means necessary ... including murder ... to get rid of competition or a threat.

[RLaitres]

12:26 PM on 11/14/2011

Libertarians,such as Ron Paul, call anyone who has even a trace of social conscience or sense of social responsibility, a "socialist". That is perfectly consistent with their totally materialistic "core value". And, while they may condemn other isms, like many that do so, what some of us find is that, fundamentally, all share that same core value. The only real conflict is whose "prescription" will dominate. But, whichever one does, it is the individual who pays the privce; i.e. humanity. Those who do not recognize that phenomenon have simply not looked deep enough. Unfortunately, that includes much of the electorate..

[nanjemoy]

11:54 AM on 11/14/2011

Ron Paul clearly doesn't know what a Socialist is.

I am a Socialist, and let me explain: Warren is a Democrat, and technocratic tinkerer. But her proposed reforms would have a greatly positive effect.

A Socialist (like me) would directly attack the inequality of power within the means of production. We would want - not merely unions to represent workers in their collective bargaining with owners - we would want the workers to take over the companies.

So, as much as Warren's simple transparency is a very good step, she is no Socialist.

[stopspending]

09:56 PM on 11/14/2011

Do you really think the workers taking over the companies would increase production and equality???? You should buy a business and then let the employees run it. I would love to see how long you allowed others to control what you had invested time and money into. Would be a hoot.

[captainspirou]

12:00 PM on 11/15/2011

Look up ACIPCO

[nanjemoy]

04:12 PM on 11/15/2011

It's fun to watch you write things when you don't know anything.

I built a business - I bought another business. Both are doing quite well. I used to run a collective food co-op in Portland Oregon (I ran, with a bunch of other people).

My observation is that most people don't know anything about management - because they have never in their lives had to manage anything.

Look, you haven't a clue. So instead of deriding you, or you opinions - let me say this: I don't have a clue either. Or more precisely, I don't know for certain.

The thing is, all organizational innovation involves risk. The risks that we encounter with things the way they are today is that we have Socialism for risk - citizens are on the hook when the craphits the fan - and Capitalism for gain - the rich keep the profits.

We have this Socialism of risk because the rich are smart enough to know that we can't have the entire world economy collapse when the banks make dumb investments.

So I say, if we need to keep the economy afloat during the bad times, we should own the profits during the good times.

Seems fair. You think otherwise.

[Saltheplumber]

07:19 PM on 11/13/2011

Ron Paul thinks the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz are Socialists, too. Whatever message Paul once had is now a distorted mess of "Hey, Look at Me", soundbites... Truly pathetic and so is his kid...

[splintercottage]

10:20 PM on 11/13/2011

THE LAST TIME HE THOUGHT, MONKEYS WERE FLYING. BOTH OF THEM COLLECT GOVEREMNT BENEFITS FOR LIFE. ERRRRF. WHAT IS THE OLD LINE ABOUT BEING PART OF THE PROBLEM?

[YannosB]

11:13 AM on 11/13/2011

And again I see all this error about socialism and socitialism.....
WE are a society, and by our very formation one which is supposed to be concerned above all with equal rights, equal protections, and equal opportunity. Every thing in our Constitution bears this to be true.. and yet so many like Paul refuse to acknowldege this very socitial reality of it!
Socialism is absolutly not about any of these things, it is about a top level which controlls and distributes all to the majority below them. It does not allow for the abilities of each person to achieve anything more than any other 'common person'; it rewards only those who rise to power and acceptance by the ruling class.
Constitutional democracy is the inverted version of this socialism... where it is the common people who weild the power, which have the freedom to achieve what each may, and which creates those who govern from with in their own numbers... not as lords over, but representitives of the whole of the people.
This is socitialism.. where the good of the whole of society is the highest prize, where the will and desire is to raise quality of life, wealth and welfair, and opportunity for all those who will equally enjoin this society. Where the goal is not what can I amass, use for myself alone, but what can I earn and then what can I do for myself and my society with all that!

[stopspending]

09:58 PM on 11/14/2011

The constitution provides for equal rights, equal opportunities, equal protections. No where does it provide for equal results - that is up to each individual.

[YannosB]

01:22 AM on 11/15/2011

I do not question, nor bemoan the right to achievement. And if I did, I would clearly not be a true patriot. My problem is not with the free market , nor even capitalism ... but with how far too many are allowed to use it (rather abuse it) with total disregard for the good of the nation, or the people even doing the work which enables their 'achievement'. Usery of people simply does not fall with in the scope of any of our common freedoms... no more that strong armed robbery.

[YannosB]

01:26 AM on 11/15/2011

And just to be clear what I have spoken about the 'economic' side of our nation, I speak equally of the governing side. All too many who enter into those positions completely drop the understanding they are there by the people, and are supposed to be their voice... Again it is not the government itself, but those who within those confines abuse their positions such that they forgo any concern for the National interest, for the self interest.

[YannosB]

10:51 AM on 11/13/2011

"He added, "her whole argument is absolutely wrong" because "governments are always destructive in the creation of wealth," according to The Hill. When pressed on whether public education was socialist, Paul said, "When the state runs things, that's a socialist thing."
I was looking for some more real information on Mr. Paul's stand... am glad it came right from his mouth.
Governments can be detrimental to the creation of wealth.. but sensible governing will do exactly the opposite by ensuring those with the most money and power do not simply crush the availibilty of a truly free market (as has clearly been the case here over the last four decades).
Then for an alleged Consitutionalist, his view is a reversal of the whole intent and meaning to Constitutional Democracy.
See, Mr. Paul, because there are and will always be those who amass wealth and power with which to overpower others... both state and federal governing is required to ensure they can not, by enacting restraints and protective laws to make them 'play fair' as it were. When state and Federal fail to do so, then you are allowing feudal development where Classes of some exert power and force in various ways over other classes of people... this is neither free nor democracy.
I have to state that in this single set of statements, Mr. Paul just lowered himself nearly to the same levels as Perry and Romney...

[splintercottage]

10:23 PM on 11/13/2011

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CREATING WEALTH AND MOVING IT FROM THOSE WHO CREATRED IT TO THOSE WHO RUN FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATE AND SPEAK ON BEHALF NOT OF THEIR CITIZENS BUT THE ONE PERCENT WHO WILL SEE THEY NEVER NEED THE SERVICES THEY GIVE THEMSELVES AND BEGRUDGE THEIR NEIGHBORS.

[jbm179]

03:00 PM on 11/12/2011

Colin Powell used to be one of my heros, but he has now gone so Liberal and Obama Kissy that I am no longer a fan of his. Obama is black, so I guess all blacks think that's the way to vote, no matter that he had no experience of any importance when elected. Now look at the mess we are in. And, please, Obama, keep your shoes off the antique furniture in the Oval Office. Is that how you were raised?? It looks so undignified, but then you get what you voted for!!

[YannosB]

10:57 AM on 11/13/2011

Sounds like you first of all missed the whole point of the article... I fail to see how either Powell or Mr. President Obama are injected.
And BTW perhaps you need to reflect on how you were raised... is flaggerant disrespect and racism really values your mommy and daddy tried to give you? If so, you are adult now, and have the duty to learn to be better. If not, then you need to go and beg forgiveness from your parents for your total disrespect for all they tried to do to give you a real life.

[TrustKN01]

01:48 PM on 11/13/2011

"Obama is black, so I guess all blacks think that's the way to vote"
Small minded thinking like this is holding America back.

[cbradman007]

10:44 AM on 11/12/2011

am i to understand this correctly- the occupy protestors is a movement against corruption, exploitation of americans for every last cent and against big business control in politics. it is made up of college students, nurses, firefighters, lawyers, military retired personell and even cops just to name a few, yet we are supposed to believe they are a bunch of hippies and drug pushers partying? we are to believe they are disorganized yet have food service areas, military assisted structure, lawyers, donation centers, heating centers, shipping and receiving areas and even garden clubs to repair any plant damage that may occur in tent areas? we are supposed to believe they don't have a clear point when sign after sign beckon for corporate involvement in politics to end and regulation of big business to protect the people from cons, scams, ponzi schemes and bad loans? that people want to defend their rights to form unions to protet them from corporate exploitation. we are supposed to believe because a couple people had sex in a tent or a couple of opportunists push drugs that somehow this is what the people are about and want? that somehow this is a fun expenditure for people sleeping in noreasters, enduring tear gas, going long periods of time without showers and sleeping on hard ground because it is fun? this isn't kicks and giggles.enough is enough and frankly if elisibeth warren is the only one to stand recognize the people she is the only choice.

[paulfiquet]

10:42 PM on 11/11/2011

Ron Paul is living in the past centuries and la la land..lots of people talk down socialism but use its benefits every day they live just dont understand they are. a mix of socialism and capitalism is a good thing.

[CarlIII]

09:45 PM on 11/13/2011

F&f ,,You seem like a reasonable person to me.

[splintercottage]

10:28 PM on 11/13/2011

lets be clear. Ron Paul is making a fortune living in past cneturies. not as a matte rof philosphy but because its the easiest way for him to avoid truly working. If he believed in a world that thakes car eof eachother like the good old days ... he could open a medical clinic. lets look at what this what this guy has choosen to do with his life. Get paid for what he rants against.

[Draesop]

08:37 PM on 11/11/2011

Now that Ron Paul MD has labeled Elizabeth Warren as a Socialist perhaps he needs to address the orientation of the Profession to which he belongs. Let us talk about the Medical Associations opposition to Medicare and to Social Security before the former helped create many medical millionaires. Let him give his opinion on their defence of segregated hospitals and medical schools. What about the continuing racist ideals of many specialties in his sub specialty. Let's pluck the mote of of your eye Ron if there is any. By the way, what's so bad about being Socialist. There are many significant social entities in this country that are based on Socialist ideals. These include the right to vote, Medicare and laws aimed at removing discrimination based on many ideals which you still appear to hold. Your feeble, lousy and downright uneducated attempt at the derogation of Professor Warren merits you your place as the assigned yelper on the fringe of the GOP.

[fyibri]

08:03 PM on 11/11/2011

Funny how Ron Paul has recently denounced Ayn Rand and Objectivism lately, but he's sounding more and more like her every day.