Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why I'm for Ron Paul instead of Mitt Romney (Latter-day Saint)
Connor's Conundrums ^ | March 14, 2007 | Connor Boyack

Posted on 03/30/2007 6:46:35 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-313 next last
To: TheKidster; areafiftyone
Ha Ha you're right, RP seems to be the most roundly hated of the candidates on FR!

I doubt it. Paul is a friend of FR and Jim even lets his Republican Liberty Caucus run their forum here at FR.

21 posted on 03/30/2007 7:06:33 AM PDT by jmc813 (The 2nd Amendment is NOT a "social conservative" issue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
WOW, I need to take the time to read the healine. I thought it said "Ru Paul"


22 posted on 03/30/2007 7:07:23 AM PDT by New Perspective (Proud father of a 3 year old son with Down Syndrome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
I'm Voting for RON PAUL!

My Thoughts? Gee arent you special

23 posted on 03/30/2007 7:07:36 AM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

I think I'm going to paste my picture in front of the American flag and run for President. I'd have as much of a chance of winning as Ron Paul.


24 posted on 03/30/2007 7:07:52 AM PDT by Lonesome Rhodes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: New Perspective

Now that makes more sense


25 posted on 03/30/2007 7:08:09 AM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

>>but acknowledged that may be impractical...

I missed that. Do you know if it was "impractical" in that he would push as hard as he could but dems might not pass it, or "impractical" in that it might not allow for enough government spending?


26 posted on 03/30/2007 7:08:12 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
If he actually got us back on the gold standard and put his trade restrictions in place it would destroy our country.

No, just it would just destroy certain large but unnatural economic structures which have evolved as a result of poor policy. And those are going to be destroyed soon enough by market forces, anyway - so it might be better if we actually took a hand in choosing how to destroy and replace them.

Not following Paul's recommendations amounts to a conscious decision to keep the floating crap game going for a few more years - or decades - but it guarantees that at some point the central bankers are going to lose control of the whole mess and deliver the USA into a Weimar Germany-like economic situation. But we are so far down that path now that it's probably too late, anyway.

27 posted on 03/30/2007 7:08:55 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("Wise men don't need to debate; men who need to debate are not wise." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Ron Paul's position on the War on Terror and his votes WITH the Democrats to cut and run disqualify him. I support Paul on almost every other issue and have long respected him. But he doesn't understand the threat posed by Islamofascism against the United States. That's a showstopper.

Ron Paul supported the Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Taliban in 2001 because there was clear evidence of their aggression against America. And, what is more, Ron Paul introduced a Congressional Declaration of War against Iraq prior to the Invasion, on the grounds that it was Constitutionally necessary.

Ron Paul warned us that without a proper Declaration of War, the Congress would blame President Bush for any setbacks: "A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress." -- Ron Paul

If we're going to fight a War, don't you think it should be done Constitutionally?

28 posted on 03/30/2007 7:09:40 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: New Perspective
You're interested in Ru Paul?

To each man his own desires, I guess...

29 posted on 03/30/2007 7:10:49 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

I don't know much about Ron Paul, the the name sounds French. Ewww.


30 posted on 03/30/2007 7:11:51 AM PDT by ryan71 (You can hear it on the coconut telegraph...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheKidster

It's not flame throwing when it's the truth.

The candidacy is an exercise in futility.....and is perfectly legitimate.

Go for it!


31 posted on 03/30/2007 7:16:31 AM PDT by OldFriend ( TOM DeLAY FAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
No, just it would just destroy certain large but unnatural economic structures which have evolved as a result of poor policy. And those are going to be destroyed soon enough by market forces, anyway - so it might be better if we actually took a hand in choosing how to destroy and replace them.

No offense, but people have been saying this since the 'classical standard' was ended in the early 1900s and the Bretton Woods agreements collapsed in the early 70s.. at that, the heyday of the Gold Standard pretty much only existed from around 1901 to 1914. Moving away from the Gold Standard has yet to cause an economic collapse, at that, some even speculate that the Gold Standard caused the Great Depression, although I believe it's inflationary effects only played a small part.

I would suggest studying the Mundell Fleming models to look at the relationships of monetary policy interrelate.

32 posted on 03/30/2007 7:17:06 AM PDT by mnehring (McCain '08 -------------------------------------- just kidding...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Please ping me when Ron Paul polls over .000001%. Thanks

Consider yourself Pinged. In National Polling of GOP Primary Voters, Ron Paul is now running 4th amongst all declared Republican Candidates.

Clinton, Giuliani lead in national polling (RON PAUL NOW UP TO 6% amongst Republican Women!)

In other words... PING!

33 posted on 03/30/2007 7:17:33 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

Nice to have convictions, but it would help if they were grounded in the reality of the 21st. century, not the 1700s.


34 posted on 03/30/2007 7:17:46 AM PDT by OldFriend ( TOM DeLAY FAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ryan71
I don't know much about Ron Paul, the the name sounds French. Ewww.

Actually, the name "Paul" was bestowed upon the former persecutor "Saul" by Jesus Christ of Nazareth, as recorded in Acts 13:9.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth, just so you know, was not French. Happy to correct your misunderstanding.

35 posted on 03/30/2007 7:19:49 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Interesting (and maybe sad), he's polling higher than Hunter, who seems to be the crowned 'Real Conservative' by a lot of Freepers.
36 posted on 03/30/2007 7:19:59 AM PDT by mnehring (McCain '08 -------------------------------------- just kidding...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
So what is a dollar, exactly?

A unit of exchange. I think you would call it fiat money.

37 posted on 03/30/2007 7:20:26 AM PDT by LeGrande (Muslims, Jews and Christians all believe in the same God of Abraham.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Nice to have convictions, but it would help if they were grounded in the reality of the 21st. century, not the 1700s.

Your argument could be used to justify tossing the Constitution entirely. From your point of view, why shouldn't we do exactly that?

38 posted on 03/30/2007 7:20:37 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Anybody but Fred Rudy McRomney. America needs someone who puts American citizens first.

Winning with a globalist RINO is a sure way for America to lose.


39 posted on 03/30/2007 7:22:28 AM PDT by ex-snook ("But above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Nice to have convictions, but it would help if they were grounded in the reality of the 21st. century, not the 1700s.

A more accurate example would be that Paul's convictions come from a 1901-1914 model (with a small resurrection in the '50s.)

40 posted on 03/30/2007 7:22:31 AM PDT by mnehring (McCain '08 -------------------------------------- just kidding...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-313 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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