Posted on 06/19/2009 7:39:10 PM PDT by FutureRocketMan
Do you support Ron Paul?
Three categories:
President Congressman Governor
Yes, that too.
Well, now, I’d have to support him running for the city limits (or, better yet, the southern border).
I didn’t. However you seem to think there is something special about it.
There are several other words that are equally descriptive that could be used in place of “loon” but you would not like them either.
You claim to have made careful consideration of the facts, so again, which aspect of the Constitution do you consider ‘loony’?
same...
I’d trust him as my OB/GYN.
You are a young conservative, and I'm curious, did you get involved in the campaigns last year, and what did you think of the different people involved? What I saw was that the McCain people were the party hacks and RINOs, the Paul people were principled advocates of limited, Constitutional government. In the middle were those who generally supported the grass-roots Republican ideas of limited-government, but maybe were influenced by anti-Paul smears like what you see on this thread and others, but were mostly doing what they were told to do, ie support "our guy" McCain who was seen as the inevitable candidate by the time of the Maine convention.
Dr. Paul was a long-shot as a candidate in 2008, and would be in the future...to the power brokers in politics Paul's principle over expediency is anathema... but the "Ron Paul Revolution" has a potential, like the Goldwater movement did, to bring new people into the process, and renew the party and the nation.
I hope that rather than accepting the anti-Paul smears you see here, in the MSM, and at leftist media and blogs, that you read what he actually says:
On the contrary, we enlist and serve and try to talk our children into serving and we are proud of their service.
We have to choose our battlefields when we can.
Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.
Why? Because he consistently supports limited, constitutional government. Concepts that this conservative still believes in.
It is true that the US Constitution provides for people like Ron Paul to make a lot of loony comments, believe in tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, and even defend his racist newsletters.
You don’t seem to be able to quote even one.
loony, tinfoil hat conspiracy theories racist is your vocabulary.
The Constitution allows you free speech, but it can’t make you be civilized or ethical when you comment about someone.
Again, how does anything in the Constitution become ‘loony’? I am waiting to see the article or amendment that you are referring to.
It’s been a year or more since I researched and analyzed that nutjob. I will not redo the detailed work for you that you and all the Paulistas should have done back then to see what a loon he is.
Here:
Do a web search on “Ron Paul racist newsletters” and you can read excerpts, scanned newsletters, comments and Paul’s denials from a myiad of sources for many enjoyable hours of seeing who that guy is. What was it, 15+ years those rantings spewed over his name?
Do a search on “Ron Paul blames US for 911” and you can find a nice supply of quotes, youtube flicks, and comments about the idiotic Paul comments.
Do a search on “Ron Paul staged attack” and read the articles, Paul quotes and comments.
Paul’s wrapping loonyness in the US Constitution is akin to religious wackos using the Bible to justify their insanity or perversion dejour. Both are offensive to those who deeply respect both.
No.
You obviously don’t even want to read about the Paul newsletters or wacky conspiracy theories. Please tell me why a newsletter was published over 15 years under his name had such offensive and wacky material in them? Why would anyone vote for or follow a man who would either author or allow his name on such material?
I realize that the searches I mentioned would uncover way too much to read. Perhaps just one article could be read. Are you interested in uncovering the truth or simply repeating a mantra with the word Constitution in it?
Angry White Man
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
If he ever gets that way-back machine to work, I might think about it.
Yep, it takes all kinds.
I have to admit I was really drawn to your post and in turn your profile page. I was like you back in high school, very politically astute and active. (As I’ve gotten older, I’ve become rather pessimistic, sort of happens when you’re a conservative and you see freedom slowly slipping away from you and America).
But that’s neither here nor there. Let me get to your original question RE: Ron Paul.
President—Let me put it to you this way. Given the choice between a Texan and a Kenyan, I’ll take the Texan every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Now, that doesn’t mean that I don’t have issues with Paul (though I am incredibly annoyed by some of his supporters). His foreign policy commentary has been well documented around here (if you have some time to kill, search articles that have been posted around here, it’s like having a conservative Lexus/Nexus at your fingertips) Someone earlier in the thread mentioned he could be a Treasury secretary and while some might find that a tad preposterous, there’s a part of me that still says when it comes to him running again “we could do (and did do) worse”.
Congress—well, he’s already there, and I can only surmise that he can have his congressional seat as long as he keeps winning reelection. He gets a lot of flak around here for among other things the earmarks he’s given to shrimp companies in his district (and there are still those that either defend that or consider it an outright lie), but my best guess is that his seat will be his as long as he likes.
Senate—This would probably be one for the Texans on FR, but could Paul actually win a statewide race in Texas? That aside, I had the very crazy thought of Paul ending up on the Senate Finance Committee and we could all watch the fur fly. While I’m on the train of thought of statewide races...
Governor—Could Paul win this statewide race? His supporters might say something to the effect of “Paul doesn’t need to become a governor, he’s done just fine as a Congressman to be a good President”. Which I suppose is a fair assessment. But the thing to ask yourself is would he make a good governor? Someone else mentioned the Trans Texas Corridor earlier in the thread and if there was one man who could be a thorn in the side of that, it would be Ron Paul. And who knows, Texas might run a budget surplus on his watch.
At any rate, this went on longer than I anticipated, but keep your head in the game and be sure to think for yourself as much as you can.
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.