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 ...
I said that Ron Paul is definitely NOT responsible for the Tea Party movement. That is hogwash.
Your response? “Get your head out. No, he is not THE man behind the TPM ...”
My comment was that he was not the man behind the TPM. Apparently that was an accurate statement since you repeated it. I think it is clear where you keep your head. I just wonder how long you can maintain that contorted position.
As far as Ron Paul is concerned, I have agreed with much of what he has said in the past about the need for politicians to adhere to the Constitution they took an oath to defend. There are other things he has said that seem a little goofy to me.
The TPM is a national, grass roots movement that has scared the politicians, especially the Democrats. Before I would credit Ron Paul with playing a significant role in the TPM I would credit Glen Beck with that.
I credit Glenn Beck, too (no doubt!). Not to mention Sarah Palin, who I believe motivated a lot of people after the elections. Yes, it IS a grassroots movement, & I hope that they stand solidly on their principles w/o giving an inch to anyone.
If I came across as being too harsh in a previous comment I sincerely apologize.
“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?”
FRiend, I agree with you 200%. It seems that everywhere Ron Paul people show up there is conflict. I suspect that Paul has an elevator that doesn’t go to the top floors. He certainly appears to have followers just as dizzy as he is.
Before Paul dropped out of the presidential race he had his troops join Republican Central Committees all over America. A video came across the internet a while ago showing a Ron Paul guy traning a bunch of them on how to achieve that goal.
They came here and joined our Central Committee. They almost destroyed it. There was chaos from the beginning and it got worse from there. Some of those same disruptive people believe that the U.S. Government murdered the 3000 or so people on 9/11 by blowing up the Twin Towers.
They never offered any proof of this, but did nod their heads wisely and say that governments were capable of this kind of behavior. Without proof accusing George W. Bush of this is slanderous. (I have no use for Bush at all because of his refusal to close our borders and his efforts to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.)
Now, I see that they have brought there goofiness to Free Republic, True to form, there is conflict. The Ron Paul people I was unfortunate enough to meet spouted more venom at Republicans than they did at Democrats. On examination that makes sense.
Libertarians are for abortion, drug use, homosexual marraige or any other behavior, seeing it as a matter of personal freedom. They should be calling themselves Democrats for a Chaotic Society.
Apology accepted and appreciated. It shows class and I know from personal experience how hard it is to do. I have been wrong a couple of times too. (Smile)
I don't know the numbers on that but we do know for a fact that the Libertarian Party is formally and officially against ANY restrictions on abortion, PERIOD. It is a firm foundational plank of their agenda, to leave the woman alone in all ways and to not even discuss the matter of degrees.
I reckon not, a couple of sentences taken out of context from a single interview when during the rest of the interview he proceeded to politely distance himself from them, from 35 years ago is not much to build a myth on, even the New York Times wouldn't try that hard to build a sand castle.
American conservatism and libertarianism are very similar if not nearly identical in most ways.
I would say that the key difference is Americans Conservative general respect the right of the state to institute some level of social polices.
Conservative also tend to be more aggressive in foreign policy.
But as far as the Federal movement’s domestic policy goes we are mostly in agreement, the same with the State government domestic policy’s in most western states.
Conservatism is largely not to have an ideology, but rather the desire to preserve and restore the best parts of our roots.
It is because of the nature of our roots in the United States that American Conservatives are a natural ally of libertarians which is an actual ideology.
All of this is due to the fact that America has Libertarian roots, Our founders with few exceptions such as Hamilton(imperialist) were mostly Libertarians.
This is particularly true of Thomas Jefferson.
Anyway as a result American conservationism is largely by definition Libertarianism.
This is not true of “conservative” most anywhere else in the world, thou we have been rubbing off on them by association. (Sadly so have they, but not as much because their roots in imperialism don’t sell like ours in liberty.)
All of this is due to the fact that America has Libertarian roots, Our founders with few exceptions such as Hamilton(imperialist) were mostly Libertarians.
No they weren’t. they were conservatives. The states could form a union because they were almost all the same, but if they were faced with today’s population which they would not even recognize, and today’s libertarians then they would never comply with this mess of abortion, gay marriage, pornography, “separation of church and state” ending border control, flooding our nation with foreign religions, and so on.
Libertarians are leftists that like conservative economics and work hand in hand with the left, to destroy American culture and community.
Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Thou there are many leftist that clam to be Libertarian, they are by no stretch of the imagination Libertarians. That being said if you want to stick to your strange definition of the word Libertarian, we will call them Conservatives, as it really doesn’t matter what word you uses.
The fact is leftist have been giving a bad name to every ideology which they have attempted to infiltrate with their leftist “progressivism”, they are even attempting to infiltrates and composited the term “conservative”.
The only advantage we have is a written history to go back to and figure out who is and who is not conservative.
Libertarians like Anarchist don’t exactly have that advantage, and as such a lot of self-proclaimed Libertarians are anything but.
Your right there are differences on a few issues, I was speaking generally.
This is like barf and purge all at the same time.
The thing you seem to miss is that Ron Paul isn’t against earmarks. He’s all for it. Why? Because its the only way to know where the money is spent. In another word,transparency.
And even if he didn’t put earmarks, the federal budget would not be decreased of one dime. That’s why he votes against the appropriation of money in the first place. Earmarks or not, doesn’t change anything, plus it represents a grant total of 1% of the budget.
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.