How could we forget the Free Republic Entertainment Troupe?
We can't forget others that the Ron Paul crowd seems to admire as well.
Posted on 09/30/2007 5:39:19 AM PDT by jmeagan
How could we forget the Free Republic Entertainment Troupe?
We can't forget others that the Ron Paul crowd seems to admire as well.
He's against the North American Free Trade Agreement and supports tougher border security.
A great-grandfather who delivered more than 4,000 babies as a doctor in Texas, Paul seems mild-mannered and thoughtful. He voted against the Patriot Act-- Paul extended his small-government He refused to accept government insurance such as Medicaid
As a lawmaker, he's chosen not to participate in the congressional pension program.
We are on the verge of a bankruptcy, the dollar is crashing, the foreign policy's in shambles and the people's personal liberties are under attack."
"Ultimately his message returns us to the principles of our founding fathers and our great state,"
Start by cutting out the waste and trim taxes more
And he is pro-2nd Amendment? ____________________________________________________________
OMG!!!! I had no idea he believed in and was supporting such things!
The man is a Communist wacko!
I once had a high regard for Ron Paul, though I thought he was somewhat unusual. But he absolutely has no grasp of Islamofacism and the threats to this nation.
He also compared the murder of 3000 innocents by terrorists on 9/11, the largest lost of lives on American soil to an attack in our history, to lives lost in traffic accidents on US highways. He is a disgrace.
I am not a Libertarian, nor am I a Democrat. I vote independently for the candidates who are most likely to reduce taxes and increase liberty. I am not for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, either.
It's like the perfect storm. He's awoken conservatives that had given up on the Republican party years ago (since the party has very few conservatives left) and meshed it with non-interventionism (another conservative principle) that will bring voters who are tired of the talk from Democrats. Contrary to the beliefs of Democrats in Washington, they weren't elected to enact more government, they were elected to end the police action. Which they didn't.
Even if Dr. Paul doesn't win the nomination (which is definitely not out of the question), his campaign may indeed be doing what Goldwater's campaign did in 1964, lay the groundwork for Reagan's campaign. But we may even be seeing a shift in party lines as has happened in this nation's history. Republicans could be returning to the party of their roots, the party of more government, and the party of Progressives. It's evident how much George feels the government has to 'help' domestically. And Dr. Paul is the opposite of that.
But that's also why he's exciting. Many of us had given up and were satisfied to sit by and watch the slow slide downward. Dr. Paul has regenerated a lot of people like that and given them hope there are leaders willing to stand up for limited government and not talk about it only to get into office for 8 years and give us a spending record worse than even LBJ.
Just a little correction. He says those things in speeches but he acts slightly different. Ron Paul requested at least $13million in earmarks to fund the NAU/NAFTA Super Highway (Trans Texas Corridor I69 Project) and he voted at least four times to put the military and guard on the border.
He refused to accept government insurance such as Medicaid
Yea, according to several sources, he refused to see patients who only had Medicaid and his campaign won't answer questions or provide evidence that he saw them for free. (http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/30/ron-paul-repeats-phony-medicaid-claim/).
To quote Hamlet, Words, Words, Words, mere words, no matter from the heart...
My definition is simple
The written framework in which grants the powers of the federal government and the extent of it's functions.
I'm sure there are better and more eloquent ways to put it.
he voted at least four times to put against putting the military and guard on the border.
I'm sure you would agree that the government we have has grown beyond the limits defined by the Constitution. We seem to have some people on this forum who are okay with that so long as they agree with the particular extra-constitutional action being taken by the government.
And it is rare to see congress debate the constitutionality of a bill.
limits = powers
Todays Federal government
My EYES!!! Noooooo.
This week, the poor city of San Jose jumped the shark..
Hwy 85 had several of the pedestrian overpasses festooned with large banners for Ron Paul...
I knew I lived amongst the perverts, leftists, Marxists, aged peaceniks whom I love to argue with to the point of their exhibiting cardiac malfunction and your run of the mill illegal aliens, welfare leaches and assholes —— but I’m shocked to learn there were Ron Paulists nearby..
I’ll be upgrading my illegal concealed carry to my Kimber Ultra CDP II .45 cal to assure the necessary knock down power for the truly deranged....
Wow, just wow.
LBJ = GWB
What was the GDP under LBJ versus now.
$ don’t mean anything without a check point.
RP is not Goldwater or Reagan or G Washington or anyone but RP.
LOL, I love the spin trying to justify the waste the government does under George. CATO has quite a few articles up defining his waste in comparison. In real dollars (those things that keep dropping in value thanks in part to policies by the Fed?), Bush is signing off on waste faster than any President in history. Only in the year and a half since the Democrats gained Congress has he even attempted to appear fiscally conservative.
Course CATO being against many of the President's programs is probably considered 'unconservative' now...
Yea, I am LOL because you did not read what I wrote. I am not trying to justify anything, I am simple pointing out you can not compare dollars without a check point and ratios.
But your answer tells all when you actually believe that dems are fiscally responsible.
I didn't say that. What I said was Bush had no desire to limit government until the 'other' party came to power in Congress. Now he's supposedly fiscally conservative (guess we'll just forget about the previous 6 years eh?). He is only playing at partisanship and nothing at conservative action. If Republicans were still in control in Congress we'd be in even worse shape fiscally than we already are. Who knows what kind of programs Republicans gone wild would have given us since 2006?
****The MSM couldn’t give 2 excrements about any of Ron Paul’s policy positions except for being against the Iraq War. That’s the only reason he gets any attention.****
True, the MSM is against lower taxes, smaller government, more freedoms etc. But I thought most republicans were for those ideas.
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.