Ping!
If he were elected and followed through on promises to eliminate the FED and slash 1.2 trillion from our indebtedness I would be happy.
Newtie and Mitty are phonies. Ron Paul is the real thing. With the ticket balanced with another Conservative it could win.
You can keep it, NEWT! :)
RonPaul, all for homosexuals and thus is NOT a conservative.
And that’s just one reason out of many.
Published: 06 December, 2011, 21:06
CLIP
Paul’s camp has upped the ante after releasing a video last week condemning Newt Gingrich as a serial flip-flopper; now they’ve gone after the party as a whole with a new ad that blasts the competition for failing to take the election seriously.
“What’s up with these sorry politicians?” asks an intense new 30-second clip released from Paul’s camp this week. “Lots of barks; when it’s show time, wimpy, like little Shih Tzus.”
It’s clear that the establishment is scared of Ron Paul, but aside from regulations and an exponentially growing Military Industrial Complex, Paul doesn’t seem scared of much. Like his latest video says, “Later, bureaucrats.”
Paul’s continuing surge in the polls is leaving his Republican competition in the dust, and as he picks up steam three weeks before the important Iowa caucuses begin, an increasingly powerful campaign can only help Congressman Ron Paul in his campaign for the presidency.
I don’t think you do understand our rights better than Ron Paul.
Our rights do not always make you warm and fuzzy.
Paul obviously should run in a 3rd party, he doesn’t fit in today’s GOP.
Ron Pauls gives bottom feeders a bad name!
What determines Conservatism anymore? Socially Conservative, Fiscally Conservative, Constitutionally Conservative, All three? This is what we must determine if we are to put up a unified front. I don't know what the correct answer is for all of us, but I know what the correct answer is for me as I sit here and watch this great nation destroyed by an elitist federal government and a Federal Reserve that is beyond reproach.
Seeking the answer takes me back to the Constitution. I want government out of my personal decisions: what to eat, whether I may purchase firearms, where and how I can travel, what house I can build and where, the list is endless. Our endless parade of taxes and surcharges are killing us - all in the name of paying for an ever growing and ever stiffling government. Enough! The Constitution set forth the limits of government and for me, that is where the line is drawn.
Seeking to increase government intrusion on personal or states' rights in the name of morality or otherwise is by definition un-Constitutional. I want these decisions handled at the state, local or family level. I don't want the government to demand that all citizens own a firearm anymore than I want a government that says we cannot. The slippery slope was reached long ago when we moved away from Constitutional limits. The definiation of freedom for all will likely include accepting someone's right to engage in an act that we personally do not support. Does our right to end such acts supercede another's right to engage in them?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
“Preventative wars”?!? It’s not preventative when they attack first, Dr. Kooks.
Ron Paul would destroy this country if elected.
He will probably destroy it by diverting enough votes with a third party run.
I have been amazed that no one has mentioned that Saturday night Paul repeatedly advocated the Doctrine of Nullification.
I thought that issue was settled by the Civil War.
Will someone please explain the difference between a conservative and a constitutionalist. You so called “conservatives” look to what for your beliefs? It sure isn’t the constitution.
I don’t know why I’m on the Ron Paul sucks ping list, but I’m glad on it! :D
If he could/would really cut a trillion bucks from the federal budget his first year in office, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. All of the other candidates seem to be dancing around the issue, which means more of the same - compromise (i.e., more federal spending, not less).
Strong on invective and provocative language. Poor on logic and reason. Rant grade: C-.