Posted on 05/08/2009 12:39:32 AM PDT by jmc813
If I’m not mistaken, the John Birch Society is closely affiliated with: http://www.thenewamerican.com/
***I thought it was mainly an older Constitutionalist Conservative group.***
That’s what makes them racist. /s
Your other points are opinion, but this is false: “Ron Paul wants to restrict free trade.”
He doesn’t belief in NAFTA type agreements which is managed free trade (which isn’t free trade). He is in favor of real free trade which hardly requires an agreement. Just lower tariffs.
> He doesn’t belief in NAFTA type agreements which is managed free trade (which isn’t free trade). He is in favor of real free trade which hardly requires an agreement. Just lower tariffs.
How is opposition to FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS not an opposition to free trade?
His association with racists has been well documented by LGF. Ron Paul refused to return their money or to denounce them.
Ron Paul wants to return to the gold standard (and, on an especially bizarre day, abandon paper currency). The damage this would do the economy is hard to even estimate.
Which allies would Ron Paul be willing to support?
Just because the black members of the John Birch Society refer to themselves as negroes (a far better term in my view) does not make them racist.
I don't agree with their conspiracy theories, but they seem like patriotic Americans to me.
He’s an Alex Jones clone.
“None of the Above”
He certainly does attract some off-the-beaten-path followers and some of them seem to worship him in a cult-like manner.
I think Ron Paul has some great ideas on the economy, but is too "out there" on many other issues, foreign policy being just one.
I believe Ron Paul might make a very good Secretary of the Treasury, but I don't support him as presidential material at all.
***How is opposition to FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS not an opposition to free trade?***
Does opposition to the PATRIOT Act necessarily make one unpatriotic? Does opposition to the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 make one against economic stabilization?
Free trade agreements don’t necessarily constitute free trade. All you need for free trade is to lower tariffs and lift any embargoes. Free trade isn’t a policy; it’s a lack of a policy.
***His association with racists has been well documented by LGF. Ron Paul refused to return their money or to denounce them.***
Even if he is a stone cold racist, what policies exactly is he thinking of enacting that harms minorities? Last time I checked he wanted government to do very little.
***Ron Paul wants to return to the gold standard (and, on an especially bizarre day, abandon paper currency). The damage this would do the economy is hard to even estimate.***
Giving the government a monopoly on the creation of money and credit and its price through setting or manipulating the interest rate (the price of money) is better? Last time I checked, government monopolies are bad for the economy and price controls distort economic calculation and decision.
***Which allies would Ron Paul be willing to support?***
I don’t agree with him on everything, but I certainly don’t think we ought to be favoring sides as heavily as we do know. We give out too much aid to both sides and we constantly fight yesterday’s friend. I’d like to see a middle ground.
1. Barack Obama associates with unsavory racists, Ron Paul associates with unsavory racists.
Who?
2. Barack Obama wants to harm US economy by causing inflation; Ron Paul wants to harm US economy by causing deflation.
Wrong. Ron Paul says the government prints money and causes inflation by ruining the value of money. He says nothing about deflation except the free market and free sellers and buyers should assign value.
3. Barack Obama wants to restrict free trade; Ron Paul wants to restrict free trade.
Ron Paul is very, very free trade, to the point of near neigh open borders.
4. Barack Obama is looking to betray our closest allies; Ron Paul wants to betray all our allies.
Bull. Unless you consider the Saudi Royal Crime family, or the Pakistani Muslim Mafia, Or the Mexican Oligarchy Crime Families our allies. All of whom play US Administrations like 2 dollar fiddles.
I agree there are some subtle differences. But they are very subtle.
There are radical differences.
Does Obama support uninfringed 2nd Amendment? Paul does.
Does Obama support the dissolution of the Department of Education and many others? Paul does.
I find it hard for anyone on FR to honestly compare the two. They are at polar opposites. You must either be grossly ignorant or a shill for the RNC.
Little Charles Johnson hates him. So do you. Ergo, by your logic, you love Charles Johnson.
... who's going out with a whimper.
Charlie Manboobs sees a racist in anyone who doesn't agree 100% with him and uses mental gymnastics to try to prove such "associations".
Ron Paul, the only republican Cindy Sheehan can stomach. Birds of a feather.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Cindy Sheehan endorses Ron Paul over Barack Obama
http://wigdersonlibrarypub.blogspot.com/2008/05/cindy-sheehan-endorses-ron-paul-over.html
and earlier:
Sheehan: “I don’t want to even discuss who is likely to be the Republican nominee, because besides having little foreign policy difference between any of them and Hillary, anyone of them would be a complete disaster on matters of war and peace, with the possible exception of Ron Paul (Tx).”
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1590/t/523/blog/comments.jsp?key=346&blog_entry_KEY=21045&t
The dems are only doing their jobs. It's like the line from Cape Fear - "seems to me the prosecutor was just doing his job councilor" (or something like that.) RP is just a true believer.
> Charlie Manboobs sees a racist in anyone who doesn’t agree 100% with him and uses mental gymnastics to try to prove such “associations”.
Would Stormfront count as a racist group?
>> 1. Barack Obama associates with unsavory racists, Ron Paul associates with unsavory racists.
> Who?
Stormfront.
>> 2. Barack Obama wants to harm US economy by causing inflation; Ron Paul wants to harm US economy by causing deflation.
> Wrong. Ron Paul says the government prints money and causes inflation by ruining the value of money. He says nothing about deflation except the free market and free sellers and buyers should assign value.
Going to gold standard would cause deflation.
>> 3. Barack Obama wants to restrict free trade; Ron Paul wants to restrict free trade.
> Ron Paul is very, very free trade, to the point of near neigh open borders.
Except NAFTA?
>> 4. Barack Obama is looking to betray our closest allies; Ron Paul wants to betray all our allies.
> Bull. Unless you consider the Saudi Royal Crime family, or the Pakistani Muslim Mafia, Or the Mexican Oligarchy Crime Families our allies. All of whom play US Administrations like 2 dollar fiddles.
Actually, Obama appears to be quite friendly with the Saudis. I was thinking more along the lines of Japan, South Korea, Australia, Israel, Poland, Georgia, etc.
> I find it hard for anyone on FR to honestly compare the two. They are at polar opposites.
Sorry, they are about as different as Stalin and Hitler. I just can’t figure out which is which.
> You must either be grossly ignorant or a shill for the RNC.
Well, I am pretty sure I am not affiliated with RNC. I guess that means I must be ignorant.
Exactamundo!
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.