Posted on 09/30/2007 10:12:11 AM PDT by traviskicks
Edited on 09/30/2007 4:01:53 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Manchester – Calls to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and repeal the Constitutional amendment that established the federal income tax drew loud applause yesterday for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
The Texas Congressman drew an eclectic mix of more than 500 supporters -- young and old, Libertarians and anti-war Democrats, independents and conservative Republicans -- who cheered his message of limited government, low taxes, free markets, bringing the troops home from Iraq, and returning to a monetary policy based on the gold standard.
Paul said the gathering at Veterans Park wasn't about him, but about his message -- which, he said, has been resonating with more and more people.
"Something very significant is happening in this country today. The paradigm is shifting away from government controlling our lives by force," he said. "People are sick and tired of what's happening and want to control (their) own lives."
He said people should be able to keep 100 percent of the fruits of their labor. Income tax is an example of the government controlling people, he said, as are the draft, prohibition on drugs, seat belt laws and other regulations.
Paul said current monetary policy amounts to a "secret sinister tax" that takes wealth from the middle class and poor, and redistributes money to Wall Street and the wealthy. The crowd broke into applause when he said the federal reserve system should be abolished.
Earlier in the day, Paul told three New Hampshire reporters he hoped to turn the enthusiasm his campaign has generated -- through the Internet, in "meet-ups" and through campaign donations -- into votes.
The physician-turned-politician said he expects to spend more and more time in New Hampshire. "The slogan on your license plate would indicate this should be fertile ground for us here," he said, alluding to the state's "Live Free or Die" motto.
Paul said he is running on the same policies President Bush advocated when he ran in 2000, which, he added, are the same ones Republicans have run on for years: a balanced budget, limited government, personal freedom and no nation building.
"Most Republicans -- the leadership in Washington -- don't believe in their own platform; that's why they are losing," Paul said.
Rather than try to spread democracy around the world, he said, politicians ought to focus on some of the shortcomings in this country.
"You don't get a fair shake unless you join the establishment," he said.
Paul, who ran for President in 1988 as the Libertarian Party's nominee, said it's more practical to run as a Republican, noting he spent half of his money in 1988 just trying to get on the ballot in all 50 states.
The door-to-door canvassing that followed the rally -- dubbed the Paul Family Walk -- included about 30 family members who led groups of campaigners in the Queen City, Concord and Nashua. Paul himself visited New England College, Dartmouth College and the Dartmouth Medical School after the rally.
Liz Viering and her husband Peter, from Stonington, Conn., said Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq is the major reason they are supporting him. "Money spent on wars of choice takes money away from other programs," she said.
Miles LaPlant, a 21-year old college student from Attleboro, Mass., said Paul is the first candidate who has captured his attention. LaPlant said he likes Paul's stances regarding the Constitution and the country's founding principles.
Jason Kantz, his wife, Angela, and their two children came up from Cambridge, Mass., for the rally. Kantz said Paul "is the only candidate that gives logical answers and means what he says."
He said Paul's stand on the war in Iraq is also an important issue for him. "We need to reduce our involvement around the world and the amount of money we are spending," Kantz said.
Long-time Libertarian Party member Dennis Corrigan of Boxford, Mass., said he supported Paul when the Congressman ran for President as the Libertarian nominee. He said he has been a Libertarian for 40 years and headed the party in Canada at one time.
Corrigan and a friend were soliticiting signatures for a Massachusetts ballot initiative outlawing the income tax. Corrigan said his friend moved to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project, adding that he plans to move to the state, as well.
Thomas Clark, Minister of the Somersworth Tri-City Convenant Church, gave the invocation for the rally. Before the rally, he said he supports Paul because of his pro-life stance. "The pro-life issue is a major issue for me," Clark said.
Paul concluded the rally by encouraging his supporters to keep the faith, saying most mass movements have been driven by only 2 or 3 percent of the population.
"You are part of that 3 percent today," he said.
A word from Jim Robinson to the moonbats:
To all antiwar moonbats, Paulistas included:
Hey, if you don't like FR and or our support the war policies leave. Go find a website that supports your unfortunate, short-sighted and misguided antiwar efforts. It's really that simple.
In case you antiwar Paulistas haven't noticed, Free Republic supports the war effort 100%. Many of our chapters protest against the antiwar moonbats either weekly, monthly or whenever the opportunity arises. The DC Chapter has been protesting against the antiwar moonbats EVERY Friday night at Walter Reed for three years.
Free Republic has co-sponsored several cross country caravans and hundreds of rallies in cities all across the country and in DC against the antiwar moonbats and in support of our Commander-in-chief, our troops, the war effort and our Gold Star and Blue Star families, many of whom are FReepers.
When you are supporting antiwar moonbats you are working against Free Republic's mission, hurting our efforts, hurting our families who have lost loved ones or have loved ones involved in the fighting, hurting our troops, damaging their morale, working against our efforts to defeat the enemy, and, in fact, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Antiwar moonbats are the domestic enemy. Antiwar moonbats willingly give aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime. In my book, that's tantamount to treason. Ron Paul is an antiwar moonbat. You figure it out. If antiwar moonbats are the enemy and Ron Paul is an aid and comfort supplying antiwar moonbat, then Ron Paul IS the enemy!
If you Paulistas are looking for support on FR for an antiwar moonbat who is giving aid and comfort to our enemies, you're nuts! Free Republic will NEVER support antiwar moonbats!
As far as our official policy on Ron Paul is concerned, it's the same policy we have for his antiwar moonbat allies the traitors Harry Reid, Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, CodePink, International Answer, et al and their flaming antiwar spam monkeys. Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!
Where the hell did you guys ever get the idea that enemy supporting antiwar moonbats would be welcome on FR?
That plain enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
With all the sucking up you’re doing, you might want to buy some more kneepads.
“Or do you all assume we can simply put a “closed” sign on the whole US Govt?.”
Well if we could do that but keep the Military I’d like it.
But thats not what Ron wants to do. He’s a loon.
Nothing "alleged" about it whatsoever (as you well know), as you've wrigglewd and squirmed like an over-amphetamined Go-Go dancer after each and every prior posting. As Count Basie always used to challenge his musicians, however: "One mo' once -- !"
Please don't attempt to clumsily change the subject under discussion by frantically hopping up and down and pinwheeling your arms like that. For the record: by your "yes, yes," then, I take you -- as another vocal and (putatively) knowledgeable Ron Paul supporter -- are admitting, openly, that the assertion that Ron Paul would ensure that "Muslims would be banned from immigrating here" is, in plain point of fact, a great, whopping, steaming pile? A simple, straightforward YES or NO, please.
With all this bald-faced lying you've been doing, you might want to have your surname legally changed to "Clinton."
“Various sources-public review, individuals, past customers, the market would shut down bad restaurants pretty quickly for lack of business Am I God? (that I know all sources people would find information, or know all ingenuity in which men can innovate?).”
Obviously, you don’t have an answer that is better than the current system of a public health service rating restuarants. None of your solutions is quick, convienient, and trustworthy.
“Well, these days we’ve got this new-fangled machine called the Internet, where fine, upstanding citizens in any municipality across our great nation can share information about virtually anything — including which restaurants in their neighborhoods are clean and which aren’t.”
Oh, you mean that new internet thingy. It’s a great source of completly reliable information. I heard that you can trust completly any information you find on the internet. Is that true?
Try again.
(((Wow)))
One more time, just for you pal. I didn't alleged that was in the link, ever, and I didn't post the link, and never argued against what your raving about.
Check above, the only thing I said was the link or what he said at the link regarding immigration was right on the money.
In any event, I gave you your dimes worth, and I'll do my best to avoid you in the future.
Have fun...
Maybe you could look in the mirror and ask why the hell you support an antiwar nutcase. Or maybe if we didn't invade Normandy in 1944, that would not be surrender, either, but would instead be peace in our time.
And made us proud!
Is brazen lying your entire life; just a happy little online hobby; or are you a "special needs" adult? Your initial (failed) dodge, back at #131, begins with: "Yes, yes, but --"
Your "Yes, yes, but --" was, demonstrably, in response to my previous: "My honest and accurate assessment of the woefully inadequate mini-doc provided in posting #122 is that -- contrary to the bluntly stated assertion that it provided hard evidence that Ron Paul would "[ban] Muslims from coming here" -- it states no such thing; and that the original claim to the contrary was a pathetic, bald-faced lie."
That's the beautiful thing about message board arguments, you see, kiddo. They leave visible, immutable and easily-referenced "vapor trails," for all and sundry to read and enjoy. Your attempts at bluffing and blustering your way back to a crouched posture of quasi-respectability, therefore, are as pitiful and (ultimately) doomed as those of a sperm whale stubbornly attempting to glide its way safely down from the top of the Empire State Building.
In any event, I gave you your dimes worth, and I'll do my best to avoid you in the future.
It's okay. I'd probably scuttle back under the sink, too, under the circumstances.
Proof he is completely unbalanced is how he continuously goes off from his message of small government to his isolationist garbage.
He does it for his audience, which are truthers and moveon.org DU freakshows.
Totally infuriates me the riff raff he has brought to our party.
HA! HA! HA!
Is there an official (unofficial) FR graphic of a flaming antiwar spam monkey?!
HA! HA! HA!
But I am concerned about Ron Paul’s willingness to allow the country to drug itself into a comatose state, which is what will happen in these generations of untrained or ill-trained youth.
Thank you for the ping. I think JR laid it out finally for all Paul supporters to see. Many, many of us feel the same way. EEE, I was surprised for the ping because I thought you were going to abstain from Paul threads. Thank you though.
Hey, if you don't like FR and or our support the war policies leave. Go find a website that supports your unfortunate, short-sighted and misguided antiwar efforts. It's really that simple.
In case you antiwar Paulistas haven't noticed, Free Republic supports the war effort 100%. Many of our chapters protest against the antiwar moonbats either weekly, monthly or whenever the opportunity arises. The DC Chapter has been protesting against the antiwar moonbats EVERY Friday night at Walter Reed for three years.
Free Republic has co-sponsored several cross country caravans and hundreds of rallies in cities all across the country and in DC against the antiwar moonbats and in support of our Commander-in-chief, our troops, the war effort and our Gold Star and Blue Star families, many of whom are FReepers.
When you are supporting antiwar moonbats you are working against Free Republic's mission, hurting our efforts, hurting our families who have lost loved ones or have loved ones involved in the fighting, hurting our troops, damaging their morale, working against our efforts to defeat the enemy, and, in fact, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Antiwar moonbats are the domestic enemy. Antiwar moonbats willingly give aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime. In my book, that's tantamount to treason. Ron Paul is an antiwar moonbat. You figure it out. If antiwar moonbats are the enemy and Ron Paul is an aid and comfort supplying antiwar moonbat, then Ron Paul IS the enemy!
If you Paulistas are looking for support on FR for an antiwar moonbat who is giving aid and comfort to our enemies, you're nuts! Free Republic will NEVER support antiwar moonbats!
As far as our official policy on Ron Paul is concerned, it's the same policy we have for his antiwar moonbat allies the traitors Harry Reid, Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, CodePink, International Answer, et al and their flaming antiwar spam monkeys. Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!
Where the hell did you guys ever get the idea that enemy supporting antiwar moonbats would be welcome on FR?
That plain enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
Jim , I think that's pretty clear and spelled out. It's also clear that folks, in responding to RP, are suddenly espousing lots of things Republicans and conservatives used to hate: the IRS, instrusive government, huge new FedGuv departments, UN mandates in foreign affairs, BigGuv minding your own business, and so on. I encourage a clear line between running down candidates and scorning limited government in the process. One can support national security and still oppose BigGuv run amok. Hence, one can look at the current crop of Republican candidates and be dismayed not to see a fiscal conservative in sight, aside from Tancedero and Paul.
As for RP's anti-war stand, I think many Americans are justly concerned about the already-demonstrated possibility of "scope creep." It would be easier to rebut RP if this war were framed more clearly. Is the goal a disarmed Iraq? Peace in Iraq? Is it a self-reliant Afghanistan? A defanged Iran? An occupied Iran? Is it an open-ended posture of defnese against radical Muslims everywhere? Is it an open-ended posture of offense against them? Is it a war against ALL Muslims? Where's the finish line?
BTW, my dad was a vet of WW II, Korea, and Vietnam, and he had a reasoned way of being able to view wars from a soldier's viewpoint while still seeing through to the BS that is Washington and global politics. He served with distinction but never gave up his right to question the muddle-headed policies that put soldier's in harm's way. He was a Reagan man before Reagan was cool. I approved and affirm his reasoning and reference it in my own. I don't think he ever resorted to telling someone they could kiss his ass, either. He had more principle than that.
Ron Paul is a purist whose politics and positions are more dreams than possibilities. Still his domestic tax and security goals could be reached via a process that might take several administrations to reach.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDkyYzdkNDNjM2QzMmI1NGEzZmEzYWRjYzQ0OTgxNmU=&w=MA==
Ron Paul is for abolishing the income tax and the IRS. The practical details for doing so are found here in http://www.fairtax.org but these are not Ron Paul’s details. He is not for a consumption tax, he is simply for ending the Income tax without replacement. That is admirable but not likely to be done in one fell swoop unless there be a revolution.
The FairTax will put the federal tax burden front and center in the minds of all Americans each time they purchase something. After a period of time it will become hardened among Americans and natural to think that something must be done about excessive spending in government, because they will see the direct hit on their wallets with every purchase.
The FairTax replaces the Income tax. It is revenue neutral. But it is visible for all to see and that in itself is scary to Income tax lovers. Because as it stands now the Income tax and all payroll taxes are embedded into the prices of all products and services but there is no breakout as to what percent. In studies the embedded tax burden ranges from 8% to 36% with a mean above 25%. But more data analysis needs to be done and in fact is being done.
Also the FairTax demolishes the entrenched K Street lobbyists that work on tax favors for special interests. This means bribery activity will cease in that part of K Street.
But back to Paul, he apparently will not even consider the FairTax because he thinks the Income tax needs to go completely without replacing it with any form of tax. As I said earlier, that’s a dream and is certainly a worthy goal but not a realistic plank in a single term campaign.
But I thank Ron Paul for being an educator on these issues. He helps to set the stage for real reform.
Where Ron Paul has turned off Republicans is his ability to attract anti-war types. I support the war but early on I wanted GW Bush to have Congress declare war on every nation harboring terrorists including Pakistan. I wanted a no holds barred war that would settle for generations the question of our right to exist.
In Pakistan, I wanted to see Musharif given one and only one chance to round up every terrorist and terrorist abettor in his country, even if that involved hundreds of thousands of individuals. And if he failed, I wanted to see Shock & Awe in Peshwar and any other place where Al Quaeda support was found. And I am sure this would have smoked out Bin Laden. The same for Egypt and Zawahiri, and Iran.
We were attacked. We had every moral just reason to name the countries that were on the the terrorist list and give them notice that Shock & Awe was coming. And we had every moral and just reason to have our representative Congress declare war on terrorism everywhere.
I once read this was what Ron Paul wanted also in some sense. He wanted Congress to declare war, not have the President get bogged down in nation building and police action. I thought how great that was. But when he said he would bring the troops home immediately (if he did say that), then I know he was too purist as to be reckless. Fred Thompson has it right, a withdrawal of our troops from Iraq now would embolden the terrorists more than any other acton could, and we cannot allow that.
So Ron Paul is a purist, too idealistic to be practical. He may indeed be the mindset that our great-grandfathers possessed in a former era, a main road mindset that we need to return to. But the path to the main road is long and Ron Paul leads many to think it’s only an election away.
There’s no hard feelings, jrooney.
I don’t agree that Paul is a “purist.”
I think his thinking has been infected by some dangerous notions that are in no way “pure.”
While he, unlike most of our current candidates, does call for the dismantlement of certain current functions of the federal government that are not to be found in the Enumerated Powers, he fails to recognize the difference between that and the national government’s real primary constitutional role: The protection of God-given, unalienable rights.
Everyone needs to get their brains around these principles, and reject those who are presenting a false federalism.
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.