Posted on 01/02/2012 7:22:11 AM PST by pinochet
“Ron Paul is NOT the savior”
I never said that he was. I just think that he’s the least bad amongst the rotten choices we have. This election cycle ended for the worse for most of us the day Sarah Palin elected not to run.
“... He’s a curse to the process.”
Perhaps, but this is the same process that gave us John McCain and John Boeher and is about to give us mittens. And this is a process we want to defend?
Good Lord. I hope that is not your expectation of the Office. Actually, I know better.
You mean we’ll all be dead instead of accepting dhimmitude? Count me in.
If they're just doing it because the bureaucracies and thier regulations are unpopular, then it's just a band-aid.
The bureaucracies have been packed with liberal idealogues, and the federal bureaucracy is one one of the Democratic Party's most powerful and influential special interest groups. The can and will find ways to frustrate any attempt at reform during a conservative administration, and be ready to start right back up again with new regulations as soon as a liberal administration comes back into power. As far as eliminating them goes, as long as the USSC continues to let Congress abuse the Commerce Clause and create bureaucracies to regulate anything the can "find" to have a"substantial effect on interstate commerce", they'll get "eliminated" the same way ACORN was. The same people will show up somewhere else, doing the same thing under a different name.
It will only stop when States force the federal government back into compliance with the original intent of the enumerated powers they were legitimately granted.
we have at least a 2fer over here, you may want to warm up the machine to Sporkweasel.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2827688/posts?page=41#41
His other baggage is not worth the cuts he can’t bring about anyway.
Ron Paul’s fiscal ideas are desperately needed now. His foreign policy is troublesome. If a GOP candidate would run on Paul’s position regarding the Federal Reserve, Congressional Spending, and Welfare, they would be a hero - in my eyes. None of the other candidates has the gall to do so - certainly not the establishment RINOS.
However, is that enough to set aside his other views and support him? I wont say one way or the other - I know my views and I will keep them as such, I’ll say he is not my first choice, currently. I do know, without a doubt, that if we dont get our domestic fiscal house in order, we wont have to worry about our foreign policy for very long at all - we are screwed fiscally and the goliath welfare state is growing exponentially.
I would vote for a Goldwater or Reagan and smile as I did so, but we don’t have men of such cloth running currently. What is the trade-off?
I am a business owner who has gone through hell and back to keep my doors open, but I have to be honest: this year scares the hell out of me and I have begun contingency planning to sell some capital assets and business segments. I have funnelled nearly $3m to keep my employees working over the past three years, but don’t think I will be able to operate in this manner for much longer.
Well said. This thread is worthless.
You went from Palin to Paul?? WTH?
I suppose a president could refuse to spend money that was appropriated. A president with Paul's fiscal ambitions would be impeached and out of office before his second year was far gone.
This year he has a 98% favorable rating from Citizens Against Government Waste. The gist of Ron Paul's tenure as a congressman points to smaller government all around. Like defense, transportation and energy funding are legitimate taxpayer interests. One can legitimately question to what extent we need to lessen our footprint in foreign lands - if at all - but for the past several decades we've created a juggernaut that is out of control in generating infringements to individual freedom and prosperity.
I have no problem keeping Ron Paul open as an option to lessen federal power, but will happily consider the candidates you've listed previously, and your list seems accurate to me in terms of which candidate represents the greater likelihood of reducing that power.
First off, let's correctly understand how earmarks work: They DO NOT raise the appropriations total, they allocate how some of it is spent before the remainder is funnelled into other agencies. Hell, we haven't had a budget in two years, why should they matter anyway at this point?
I agree with Paul, on earmarks. There should not be a goliath thousand page appropration bill which no one reads or understands. Every penny allocated for one district or another should be earmarked and justified by the requesting party - openly and transparently. Paul thinks all spending should be earmarks - so does my bank - but let's be honest with what that position means. Paul has never voted in favor of any appropriations bill, to call him the king of pork is blatently false or at least a clear mis-understanding of his position on the issue.
p.s. While I think I dislike your opinions, I really dig your screen name. I always thought he was a superior if midunderstood leader.
3fer...
I count 3....
Wow, 20 seconds apart guys. I was waiting for a response about the sarc tag. But yeah, baring user error, there are 3
Yup, same here. Gone from needing an exterminator to an air strike...
We’re on the ball ;)
AND, possibly a 4th jumped in :/
Must be the scewed polls that is giving them gravitas to say something now..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.