Posted on 08/16/2010 12:09:43 AM PDT by citizenredstater9271
Gun trial of Free Stater could challenge laws against open carry
Activists descend on latest real ID hearing. From 2008.
Free stater mob heckles NH legislators
Not successful?
But I still think NH was the right choice for a state. It has low taxes and a small population so its politics are easier to influence then say South Dakota. Besides how active are the NH liberals? What have they done thats on par with what the Liberty Movement has aside from getting some liberals elected?
I’m not bashing NH. NH and Maine are the most conservative of all the New England states. But Boston is more liberal than anywhere. And there was significant movement from MA to NH even before FSP.
South Dakota has roughly the same population as NH. People are not commuting from Sioux Falls to Minneapolis. (But they do drive a long way for things like dinner). Alaska would’a been a good choice for FSP. Most of the Rocky states. Wyoming? Idaho? Maine might’ve even been better than NH.
I’m not saying FSP is a bad thing. They didn’t effect Ron Paul positively in NH much though.
If it were up to me I’d go with Idaho. ID’s population is more in one place then SD or Wyoming. SD is spread out all over the place and it would take six hours to drive from Souix Falls or Rapid City to the state capital. I don’t know much about WY. But I still think NH was the best choice since its small, easy to get around and has a historic libertarian atmosphere. SD and WY don’t have income tax but have sales tax. I think smaller size is better too.
Dr. Paul did much better in New Hampshire then in most other states during the primaries. The Free State Movement was still getting started. Two years later they are more active and have done more for NH. I posted a list of videos showing this.
I don’t support Alex Jones but why should he discredit Dr. Paul????
The holier than thou prejudice lumps are as much a threat to the truth as any enemy conjured or real.
I'm against cutting and running in iraq but theres a difference between what Dr. Paul wants to do and what n0bama wants. n0bama is a muslim sympathizer and socialist. Dr. Paul only supports America and Americans. Anything he does will be in the interest of Americans not muslims.
That doesn’t mean Dr. Paul is wrong just b/c he pals w/ Alex Jones. I for one think theres some good stuff on Jones’ website (poisoned vaccines, socialist takeover of America) we need to consider. Just like how theres racists in the tea party. That doesnt mean the tea party mvoement itself is racist. Likewise just b/c Jones is a little off doesnt mean Dr. Paul is a little off.
People around these parts attack Ron Paul for his stance on foreign policy, but the truth is that he's just the messenger telling it straight. It's an economic reality that the United States cannot sustain the type of military operations overseas that we have been engaged in for decades. It's a hard truth for some to face, but that's the reality of it. We don't have the money and resources to do it, and it's bleeding the country's treasury to death. Eventually we won't be able to afford the military operations anymore and then we will be forced to cut military funding whether we want to or not, and that could lead to chaos in the military if it is done suddenly.
Furthermore, our borrowing to fight the current wars is putting national security in jeopardy. The US has to develop a new foreign policy and military strategy that is more financially feasible if the US is to remain a viable presence on the international stage. That may mean we have to have a more modest foreign policy until the US is on better financial footing. I hope US policymakers are thinking about how to arrange that without allowing the US' competitors to go completely unchecked.
The first principle of conservatism should be a truly free market. Meaning no FED, no taxes, no fiat money, gold and silver are money, gov. functions to PROTECT your private property and not take it, no propping up monopolies, no telling the banks to loan money to irresponsible ppl and cause a financial crisis, you get the idea.
The first role of government is to secure the rights and liberty of the people. That's the reason given in the Declaration of Independence. Securing the people's right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness is the role of government. If the government infringes on ANY of those other rights in the name of protection then it is subverting its own purpose.
By the way, maintaining stable financial policy is just as essential to keeping the country safe as foreign policy, because if the US goes bankrupt then it cannot fund its own military and defense operations. If the US loses economic independence and stability,then it will likely lose its political independence and freedom to the manipulation of stronger powers. As citizenredstater says the free market and honest money, and an end to government backed monopolies are essential to maintaining freedom and economic viability. (And these things are necessary to ensure the government's ability to secure the rights of the people). Economic viability is a prerequisite for independence.
I would think that should be the argument Ron Paul supporters should use.
Wars are expensive. Military bases are expensive.
We can’t afford these things.
Very few people here liked hearing the theory of blowback.
I dont agree w/ Dr. Paul on his military stance. I believe jihadis are a problem that needs to be dealt with. But Dr. Paul DOES have a solution: close the borders now and forever. Don’t let anyone (esp. jihadis) in and your problem is solved. Yes the only function of the gov. should be to protect property and freedom. Yes finishing the job in Afghanistan and Iraq will secure us. But WHO ELSE IN WASHINGTON wants to go back to a 100% free market, end the FED, go back to gold and silver and restore the Constitution and Christian values???? Theres NO ONE ELSE other then Dr. Paul like it or not. I supported Bush even tho he didnt even mention the way the FED is killing the economy by printing more money and devaluing the dollar so it wont be worth the paper its printed on in a few years. I support Dr. Paul even if his foreign policy is absurd the same way.
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.