That difference here is that Ron Paul is running as a republican.
People on FR have just come to realize that a person who’s support base doesn’t believe that arab terrorists attacked the twin towers and the pentagon, and who doesn’t believe in the war on terror, and who believes in getting rid of NASA because it’s ‘not in the constitution,’ isn’t a good choice for president AT ALL.
Letting Ron Paul have power over the most important issue of the day (Foreign Policy), which is the one issue that the president has the most power over, would be akin to putting a large sign over America that says, “ATTENTION TERRORISTS, WE WILL LEAVE YOU ALONE FROM NOW ON, YOU ARE FREE TO ATTACK US AND ALL OF OUR ALLIES”
I think we should get rid of NASA because it is not in the Constitution. What is wrong with Constitutional Amendments that get debated, and require a supermajority, if we want to expand the Federal Governments activities?
So...having a federal agency that was created without any Constitutional authority (and therefore is in violation of the 10th Amendment) is a good idea?
My FRiend...remember, every federal elected official takes an oath, with his hand on the Bible, "to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"...that's it...not defend the American flag...the American people...American territory...just the Constitution. The first question that every federal elected official should ask before voting on anything is...is there any Constitutional authority for what is being proposed here? That's it
If the answer is no...it is both illegal (the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land) and immoral (they took a sacred oath to defend the Constitution) to vote in a way that violates it
Conservatives used to hold in contempt people like FDR and Johnson...and [name your favorite leftist Supreme Court Justice] who always rationalize a way to ignore the Constitution when it interferes with what they believe to be an important federal initiative.
Now, I see a lot of criticism of Ron Paul because "he's always whining about the Constitution"
That's something I would have expected to see on DU had it been around while FDR was working his socialist revolution on America and fighting the conservtive Republicans who tried unsuccessfully to stop him
People on FR have just come to realize that a person who’s support base doesn’t believe that arab terrorists attacked the twin towers and the pentagon, and who doesn’t believe in the war on terror, and who believes in getting rid of NASA because it’s ‘not in the constitution,’ isn’t a good choice for president AT ALL.******
Well, libertarians and republicans have a lot in common. Some people complain about the libertarians party in the same way as demos complain about Nadar running on the Green Party.
I don’t doubt that some of his support comes from far out groups, but that is true for any candidate.
Ron Paul doesn’t disagree with a WOT, just with the way it is being handled.
As for NASA, I can remember when Newt and his bunch of back benchers were advocating turning the space program over to private enterprises. We are starting to see a bit of that today. Some company or group just won a prize for getting vehicle into space, back down and up again in less than 30 days, or something like that.