Posted on 04/04/2010 1:07:46 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Some commentators have suggested that Republican-Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul is responsible for the grassroots Tea Party movement rising up against the present Washington chaos. The truth is Paul's 2008 presidential campaign ignited long-held frustrations and also educated some of the younger generation regarding constitutional principles.
Considered a "kook" by many of his congressional peers, Paul may be the only sane one there. This is the man who just returned $100,000 of his congressional budget back to the U.S. Treasury. His congressional frugality borders on treason within free-spending Congress. Nicknamed "Dr. No" because of his thriftiness, he votes no to any legislation unless it adheres to the Constitution....
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
And as for Ron Paul, well, "Dr. No Earmarks Except My Own" is not the standard bearer of "constitutional government" that he pretends to be.
oh Rabs, over here!
How can anybody trust libertarians when their favorite
“son” loads up legislation that he knows will pass and
gives the pork while giggling “I voted against it.”?
***
Shrimp boats Is Acomin
Their Sails are in sight.
Shrimp Boats is acomin
there will be dancing tonight.
** Ron Paul version.
Shrimp Boats is acomin
Their pork is in sight.
Shrimp Boats is acomin
They will be drugged up tonight.
Sadly there are many RINO’s that make Ron Paul look good. lol
Hey man, I did a search, but the search function isn’t working so good lately.
Don’t you go harshing my buzz!
See tag line.
Ron Paul is definitely NOT responsible for the Tea Party movement. That is hogwash.
Libertarians are a left wing splinter group whose members that favor their economic interests, drift over to the Republicans, while those that favor the social leftism of the Libertarian agenda drift over to the Democrats.
While the ones that contaminate the Democrats are useful because they carry the “contamination” of conservative economics, the ones that contaminate the Republicans are damaging, because they carry the actual contamination of the left’s war against Americanism and American culture and community.
This is probably true, for all of Ron Paul’s falts and extreme policy’s, the basic truth if the matter is too much government is the signal most destructive force driving to extinction all forums of American Conservationism.
Religious, social, economic, ect...
If you think about it:
* It’s government that is replacing God.
* It’s government that is replacing the need for social values among our people to provide for our needs.(Government attempts to provide for them thou the social welfare/police state)
* Its government that is crushing our economy by crushing our economy liberty and thus opportunity.
* Its Government largest in domestic matters that is compromising our ability to defend ourselves abroad(there is not enough left!).
As Ronald Reagan correctly said, Government is not the solution to our problems, GOVERNMENT IS THE CAUSE OF OUR PROBLEMS!
He was right then just as he is right now. too much government is the enemy of mankind.
One thing you can say about Ron Paul is that he is a constant opponent of government. It seems inevitable that this is exactly what we need for a REAL lasting Conservative victory. Less government, and a hell of a lot less dependence on government.
Men must therefore look more to themselves in their own independent charter and of course that of their culture and God.
This article, In the Reagan Library, Only Ron Paul Carries the Reagan Mantle, is an interesting one also.
You mean folks like Juan McCain? El Presidente Jorge Bush? Newt Gingrich? I'll take the good doctor over these progressive world-government supporters & enablers anytime!
Get your head out. No, he is not THE man behind the TPM, but starting back in 2007, the supporters of his newly-created Presidential campaign laid the building blocks for what would become the TPM. Rep. Paul was essential in getting things started early, early on, before it even had the "Tea Party" name. IIRC, the name itself was started by Rick Santelli of CNBC.
The founding fathers were libertarians and also Christians. Lots of people around here can’t seem to get over their love for killing people that they fear.
Lots of people around here, such as the drug warriors, build up the federal government with their laws that they pass to control the behavior of people they don’t like.
Fools. George Washington told us not to do what we are doing all around the world with our military. But hey, don’t you feel better to watch people blown up? Don’t you feel better knowing girls, as well as boys, can now attend madrassas and learn to hate us?
We should be sending bibles and missionaries to change their culture one person at a time, not give them an excuse to recruit people who don’t like the presence of foreign troops.
You religious conservatives put your faith in government instead of God to change the culture. Only God can change hearts and minds.
Your laws only succeed in making a stronger police state and protecting the profits of criminals.
I realize this reply is an exercise in futility because conservatives like to cut their nose off to spite their face. Or, in other words, they like to build up the government with their “good intentions” that will one day turn on them. That day is probably sooner than you think.
Paulites!!!! Sthut Up!
Forget about it...just like Sarah Palin said, we’re NOT gonna shut up!
No they weren't. Libertarianism is not classical liberalism. Libertarianism is a modern, Romantic perversion of classical liberalism.
Fools. George Washington told us not to do what we are doing all around the world with our military. But hey, don’t you feel better to watch people blown up? Don’t you feel better knowing girls, as well as boys, can now attend madrassas and learn to hate us?
Such a shame that that stupid, ignorant fool Thomas Jefferson had to go and ignore Washington's advice, now isn't it? Or rather, it could just be that the Founders never advocated rolling over while those who hate you try to kill you. Yeah, I think that's it.
Face it, you anti-war people live in a stupid, deluded, self-centred little dream world that has no approximation to reality. Do you really think that the Muslims didn't hate us until we started supporting Israel or having bases in Saudi Arabia? Are you really THAT stupid? Are you really THAT blinkered and blinded to the realities of the world? Time for you to get on the clue train, buddy. They hate us because we are not like them. That's why they pirated American ships and sold captive American sailors as slaves in 1800, and that's why they attack us now. Not because of these stupid little Walter Mitty-like fantasies that you Ron Paul idiots have concocted.
You religious conservatives put your faith in government instead of God to change the culture. Only God can change hearts and minds.
Wrong - it's you libertarians, with your complete and utter inability to SELF-govern, who create the "need" for big, intrusive government. Back when the country was basically exactly what we "religious conservatives" would want it to be, we also had a much larger portion of actual liberty. Libertarians are the enemies of the liberty they claim to love.
I realize this reply is an exercise in futility because conservatives like to cut their nose off to spite their face. Or, in other words, they like to build up the government with their “good intentions” that will one day turn on them. That day is probably sooner than you think.
Rather, it's just that conservatives are actually able to process the world as it really is, and human nature as it really is. Libertarians, on the other hand, live in a fantasy world where human nature is good. Libertarians simply don't have a clue about the realities of the world around us. Libertarians live in a world where privatising all the roads would work. Conservatives understand that such an idiotic action would result in massive intrusions into the liberty of individuals by other individuals. Libertarians eventually become conservatives when they grow up.
Problem is, it seems that every single time that a libertarian cites this Reagan interview, they completely pull it out of context. Sorry, I hate to tell you this, but Reagan was quite obviously not cool with the libertarian social platform. Reagan was against abortion, Reagan was the one who intensified the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military, Reagan was the one who greatly expanded the federal War on Drugs (which I disagree with, btw), and Reagan was the one who greatly expanded the efforts to stamp out pornography - the last two being things that are especially out of touch with the Pot and Porn Party.
Trying to point to Reagan's interview, and use it to suggest that Reagan was just hunky dory with libertarianism as a blanket statement is simply dishonest.
To the extent that Reagan's statement qualifies, it is as support for fiscal libertarianism, which is simply fiscal conservatism or the type you can get just as easily from someone like Jim DeMint. By this standard, even Ron Paul doesn't measure up, since his schtick is to tack on billions in earmarks for his district, and then vote against the bill as a whole, knowing that the bill, his earmarks included, will pass, so he gets the pork for his district while still being able to claim to have "voted against big spending." Quite a dishonest tactic.
Besides, not all Libertarians are pro-abortion. There is a significant # of them that are pro-life, including the good Rep. / Dr. Ron Paul. On top of that, I believe the last 3 or 4 Presidential candidates they have chosen for the last 20 yrs were pro-life. Every one of them, if I'm not mistaken.
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.