The problem with Phil Gramm is that he has extra ears growing out the back of his neck. Dr. Paul doesn't have extra ears ... at least, they're not visible in pictures.
And that's another reason why Ron Paul should be president.
Posted on 07/01/2008 2:19:51 PM PDT by mnehring
According to Ron Paul Henchman and alleged erstwhile ghostwriter Lew Rockwell (broke link, Lew Rockwell not welcome on Free Republic), you can blame Dicky Flatt’s buddy, Phil Gramm: …I was involved in that campaign, when Reagan broke his moronic “11th Commandment” to speak ill of fellow Republican Ron Paul, and such figures as Karl Rove and Paul Weyrich conspired to wage a very nasty campaign against Ron. In true Republican dirty-tricks fashion, Ron’s campaign office was even burglarized and his mailing list and other documents stolen. The power-elite had annointed (sic) the Philster, and would brook no grassroots opposition. Ron, of course, ran a hard and heroic campaign, complete with brilliant antiwar ads.
Wow! Bush’s Brain was controlling the party way back then? It also seems a bit ironic for Rockwell to call Reagan’s 11th Commandment “moronic” then whine about him breaking it. Then Llewellyn all but states it was Rove and Weyrich that broke into Paul’s campaign office, a pretty bold claim. And what war was Paul running anti-war ads against in 1984?
The Rockster was responding to comments made by Spencer J. Hahn on why he can never forgive Gramm for stealing Ron Paul’s chance of serving in the Senate alongside Barry Goldwater: Let us not forget that it was that Democrat turncoat, Phil Gramm, who defeated Ron Paul in the 1984 Republican Senate primary. Had Ron Paul won the primary, he would have won the general election, and become the true conscience of the Senate. I often wonder what would have been if Ron Paul had been in the Senate to filibuster every unconstitutional bill. He almost certainly would have been a presidential candidate (as Gramm was in 1996), and likely would have been taken more seriously by the MSM.
So there you have it, folks. The reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously is because Phil Gramm beat him in the primary in 1984. Oh, and Halliburton.
I thought Libertarians were all about personal responsibility?
You don’t know how the US Senate works, do you?
There is such a thing as the bully-pulpit...you can make it a national issue, but the RP had other priorities. Abortion was not one to tackle. Again, they are the ones who had the power and opportunity...nothing.
The funding is an easy target (overseas abotions etc.). RP...nothing.
I disagree. We now have a 4.5 to 4.5 balance of power in the Supreme Court. We have an entire class of abortions that is ruled out of bounds. We have a consensus toward the pro-life position that is evidencing itself around the nation as a result of pro-life leadership.
Gains have been made.
HOWEVER, none of this has anything at all to do with the Libertarian Party’s pro-abortion platform.
Are YOU a member of the LP or planning on voting LP?
No, libertarians are all about personal responsibility. On the other hand, Libertarians are generally just a bunch of whiners who drape themselves in pseudo-libertarian cloth.
The Libertarian Party is as much a home for libertarians and the Republican Party is for conservatives.
If you are a “l”ibertarian, do you agree with the “L”ibertarian Party’s pro-abortion plank?
The problem with Phil Gramm is that he has extra ears growing out the back of his neck. Dr. Paul doesn't have extra ears ... at least, they're not visible in pictures.
And that's another reason why Ron Paul should be president.
Good quote to remember.
Actually, I’d describe myself as being caught somewhere in the middle of libertarianism and conservatism — so, pro-life and anti-drug war, as examples.
Thanks. Just remember to correct the "and" to "as". Oops.
It is the idea that counts.
Good read I heard this interview he did on Iran and gas prices a few weeks ago..good stuff
http://feeds.radioamerica.org/podcast/GKE/audio/000004_002794.mp3
Wow, now that you point that out, that Lormand dude has a wierd looking ear on the left side of his head eh? It's lower than it should be, and sticks out.
Its a conspiracy man. Knuckle dragging Conserv-0-huns have extra ears.
Actually, it's not. They believe that tax dollars shouldn't fund abortions, and that states should regulate it as they did before Roe vs Wade.
I can see why Paul did run under their banner.
Paul has always been pro-life even when he ran as a Libertarian in 1988. There are pro-life libertarians just as there are pro-abortion Republicans.
Nice grey/maroon colors on the duds, though....
Well, no, not really. According to the inexpressibly silly Mr. Harry Browne (former Libertarian candidate for president), the Libertarian position on abortion is .... no position at all. The money quote:
This position allows us to offer hope to either side of the debate. To one side we say: we will not let the government impose its way upon you.To the other side we say: if you want to reduce abortions, there are much better ways than by depending on the government — because it will only disappoint you.
I haven't seen any other statement of the Libertarian position on abortion ... Mr. Browne schleps off with a "reasonable people can disagree" on it, but does say that government (apparently at any level) should have nothing to do with the issue.
Of course, Mr. Browne's bafflegab was/is nothing more than a cop-out for an issue that should play right into the hands of a good libertarian; namely, at what point do humans gain their rights?
It's not hard to read between the lines on this one: Mr. Browne, at least, is saying that he favors the rights of those who would abort, over those who would be killed by the procedure. Fair enough -- but he didn't have the guts to say so.
They have a clear pro-choice plank in their platform.
It’s roughly the old blurb “choice left up to the woman.” I could look it up, but that’s close enough.
In short, the choice they’re supporting is abortion. That’s pro-abortion, E3
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.TOTAL pro-choice. The lie that "They believe that tax dollars shouldn't fund abortions, and that states should regulate it as they did before Roe vs Wade" is just that, A LIE.
More from the Libertine Party:
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
Actually, it does have the authority. What they might have meant is "Gov't should not have..." I would disagree with that, too.
A community has the responsibility to define all that threatens it and then to repel it.
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.