Yes perhaps the anti-police action stance is valid to an extent. But there are a few people I know in their 20s that are getting out in the work force and realizing their paychecks have these huge chunks out of them they weren't expecting. They want that money back and they realize the same ol' same ol' isn't going to get it this time.
What it looks like is a generation has been raised to be conservative and many of them (thank God) are still idealistic in their view of conservatism. The only candidate that represents that idealistic view (true limited government) to them is Ron Paul.
It seems silly that Paul is called a ‘protectonist’.
How do you call someone who voted for and supported MFN for China, protectionist? He was even against trade sactions for Iran and Iraq.
“Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, who says he voted for MFN because of his libertarian belief in free trade” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n26_v13/ai_19601315 -———————————
On July 27, by a vote of 170 to 260, the House failed to pass a joint resolution rejecting President Clinton’s decision to continue Normal Trade Relations (NTR)-formerly called Most Favored Nation trade relations-with Communist China for another year.
Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Tex.) opposed the bill, saying, “Trade policy should never be mixed with the issue of domestic political problems.” Paul, who strongly opposes U.S. military intervention, also said that “it is true that nations that trade are less likely to go to war with one another.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199908/ai_n8855771
-—————— “China’s record on human rights has been far from perfect, but there aren’t many perfect nations in the world. Even the United States government has been known to abuse the liberties of her own citizens. The important point is that removing MFN status from China will do nothing to improve the lives of the citizens of China, and many believe it could make conditions worse.
It is also inconsistent to deny MFN status to countries like Iran, Iraq, and Libya because of their civil rights positions. For instance, because Iraq grants greater personal freedom, it actually treats its citizens and Christians in a more favorable way than do Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. U.S. sanctions against Iraq have been outrageously immoral by starving children and denying medical care that could be obtained if they were allowed more free trade.
Some complain about the trade imbalance and Red China’s accumulation of American dollars, but this is no threat. If the Red Chinese didn’t buy our debt, the Federal Reserve would have to.”
http://freedompage.home.mindspring.com/june97tx.htm
Also:
By a margin of 150 to 71 (Roll Call no. 338, 260-170, 7/27/99) House Republicans voted to support Bill Clinton’s extension of Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) status for Red China, which status results in a transfer of wealth from the American economy to the Chinese economy amounting to more than $60 billion per year. The 150 Republicans who voted with Clinton and against America’s best interests were: , Paul (Tex.), etc.
http://www.conservativeusa.org/vote-rec99.htm
GTFO of here with our "police action" leftist spew.
Dubyas is saving your ass whether you like it or not. In your case, you don't like it, and I take exception to Dubya saving your ass.
How it defending Congressional Earmarks, as Paul does, for Limited Govt?
How is pigging out on over $400 million in earmarks to fat cat special interest groups showing his fidelity to “limited Govt” principals.
Paul is a fraud who says all these nice sounding things to keep all the fringe Know Nothing Buchannaites types all excited while being just another good old boy politician in reality.
Limited sanity, perhaps but Dr. Demento has done zero, zip, nada to “limit gummint” in his all too many decades in public life. Dr. Demento should run 3rd party to draw votes from Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist. He sure as heck won’t draw significantly from Republicans.