Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Ron Paul a Conservative Republican or is Opposition to the Fed Something Else?
Anarchy Deluxe ^ | 12/06/2009 | MIchael Nichols

Posted on 12/06/2009 9:15:17 AM PST by Anarchydeluxe

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: billybudd
- as long as we also spend hundreds of billions per year to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan!

Looks good on paper...And there was a time when this applied...However, the world has gotten much smaller since the founding Fathers conceived the beautiful idea of staying out of international affairs...

I think one has to take a broader look at what constitutes the 'defense of the U.S.'...

Were we defending the U.S. by getting involved in the 2nd World War??? I'd say yes...Are we defending the U.S. by installing missles in allied countries in Europe??? Again, I'd say yes...

Korea may be up in the air but you can bet there are a lot of S. Koreans who are happy we got involved...

And Israel??? From a Biblical perspective we MUST protect Israel...The Founders of course had no idea that a couple hundred years down the road God would move His people back to the land He promised them...

That situation is meaningless to Ron Paul and apparently his supporters...So no Ron Paul for me...He's the most pro Constitution politician out there...But he needs to get outside the box and take a look around...

41 posted on 12/06/2009 11:34:58 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Looks good on paper...And there was a time when this applied...However, the world has gotten much smaller since the founding Fathers conceived the beautiful idea of staying out of international affairs...

This is simply not true. If anything the U.S. was less "isolated" at the time of the founding that it is now. It was surrounded on all sides by hostile or potentially hostile powers throughout most of the nineteenth century including possessions of the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, and the French.

42 posted on 12/06/2009 11:41:34 AM PST by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Goldwater opposed most of the civil rights movement.

Goldwater was a founder of the Phoenix NAACP.

Apologies. My language was imprecise. He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the major piece of Civil Rights legislation that continues to control our interactions to this day.

From Wikipedia:

Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964[12]. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.[13]

43 posted on 12/06/2009 12:24:29 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
, the world has gotten much smaller since the founding Fathers conceived the beautiful idea of staying out of international affairs...

Isn't this excactly what the libs say: medicine has gotten much more complex since the time of the founders, transportation has gotten much more complex since the time of the founders, education has gotten much more compmlex since the time of the founders, citis have become much denser and the second ammendment no longer makes senese like it did in the time of the founders, etc.

44 posted on 12/06/2009 12:28:06 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Poser
Ron Paul on Free Trade:

Free trade agreements threaten national sovereignty I opposed both the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, both of which were heavily favored by the political establishment. Many supporters of the free trade market supported these agreements.

Nearly six decades ago when the International Trade Organization was up for debate, conservatives and libertarians agreed that supranational trade bureaucracies with the power to infringe upon American sovereignty were undesirable.

Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 96 Apr 1, 2008

You disagree with this? As a conservative are you not repulsed by the ever greater power we give to foreign bureacrats?

45 posted on 12/06/2009 12:31:56 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: John D
Cut and run Paul is a joke because he has NEVER done anything but talk. Talk about how The United States was to blame for 9/11. Talk about eliminating earmarks, but takes everyone he can get. Talks about cutting down our military. On and on and on

Well the role of Congress it to talk (debate) and vote. He does both of those. Hope we can find another big-military, inteverntion-loving, Islam-obsessed candidate for 2012. I mean McCain did so well by holding the opposite positions to Paul on all these things.

46 posted on 12/06/2009 12:34:10 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
You used the word "libertarian" in your post several times, while I myself don't care about political party. I care about finding & electing political leaders & patriots who intend to protect & defend the CONSTITUTION. Period.

That's why I admire Rep. Paul like I do. From what I've seen about Rep. Michele Bachmann, I have been positively impressed as well. The FREEDOM INDEX of The New American magazine is an important source of info for me. I wish that more of our fellow FReepers would begin to use it as well.

47 posted on 12/06/2009 12:36:16 PM PST by ChrisInAR ("You gotta let it out, Captain!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

I disagree with Ron Paul on isolationism, both in trade and foreign policy.


48 posted on 12/06/2009 12:37:17 PM PST by Poser (Enjoying Prime Rib for 58 Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
I support them both. Ron Paul might be just what we need right now, but he’s never going to be President. This I agree with.
49 posted on 12/06/2009 12:52:21 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Poser
I disagree with Ron Paul on isolationism, both in trade and foreign policy.

Say what???? Rep. Paul is by far the most pro-free-trade Member of Congress...& how can you call him an "isolationist" when he has the non-interventionist foreign policy of the Founding Fathers: one that believes that our military should be used for the DEFENSE of the United States, instead of chasing demons world wide?

The "isolationist" whining is getting very dull after all of these years.

50 posted on 12/06/2009 1:05:58 PM PST by ChrisInAR ("You gotta let it out, Captain!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR

He asked. I answered. You certainly have the right to disagree, as do I.


51 posted on 12/06/2009 1:09:50 PM PST by Poser (Enjoying Prime Rib for 58 Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Poser

In other words, you either can’t (or won’t) answer my question. I guess some folks just can’t handle the truth.


52 posted on 12/06/2009 1:12:59 PM PST by ChrisInAR ("You gotta let it out, Captain!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: WackySam

I can’t recall now what the issues were, but I do remember when I heard them at the time I was like “What the?” It has to do I think with his views on dealing with rogue nations & there was another issue too thqt his answer stunned me- As I said- he has soem really good points, but then wanders into wierd positions on certain issues- I can’t recall the issues right now, but remember that I didn’t take him seriously as a candidate after hearing his answers


53 posted on 12/06/2009 1:20:32 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Anarchydeluxe

Ron Paul’s a libertarian. But he’s a dogmatic, rather than a pragmatic or empiricist libertarian. That means he doesn’t always think things through, and that’s not good.


54 posted on 12/06/2009 1:27:33 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Well the role of Congress it to talk (debate) and vote.

If they are effective they also present bills that will be of benefit and work to get them passed. All cut and run does is talk, and blame America for everything that goes wrong in the world.

I mean McCain did so well by holding the opposite positions to Paul on all these things.

I may have known John McCain, but I did not like him, at least though he was not anti-American. He knew who the enemy was and did not praise them.

Cut and run would have been just as bad for America as Obeybe is. Both of them are pro-Islam and anti-America.
55 posted on 12/06/2009 1:54:28 PM PST by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR

“In other words, you either can’t (or won’t) answer my question. I guess some folks just can’t handle the truth.”

Not exactly. I answered your question, and theirs and you simply refuse to recognize that fact. I don’t argue with zealots of any variety. I expressed my opinion. You don’t like it. That’s ok by me.


56 posted on 12/06/2009 2:29:06 PM PST by Poser (Enjoying Prime Rib for 58 Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Isn't this excactly what the libs say: medicine has gotten much more complex since the time of the founders, transportation has gotten much more complex since the time of the founders, education has gotten much more compmlex since the time of the founders, citis have become much denser and the second ammendment no longer makes senese like it did in the time of the founders, etc.

Can't defend your position so you're on the attack, eh???

57 posted on 12/06/2009 2:39:37 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Anarchydeluxe

He couldn’t be a Republican, he believes in the US Constitution.


58 posted on 12/06/2009 3:56:50 PM PST by freedomfiter2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
It also overlooks the fact that several (7?) states had seceded before Lincoln's inauguration.

No state seceded before Lincoln's election.

59 posted on 12/06/2009 4:19:18 PM PST by Sofia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Poser

You didn’t respond to anything. You just repeated your line after it was shown to be false.


60 posted on 12/06/2009 4:23:01 PM PST by Sofia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson