Good question. And I jumped out of perfectly good airplanes in the US Army.
Your turn, mommya. Exactly what do I fear?
Or you can get raw with these strings. Either way, the violin is sweet yet lethal.
Do it!
Posted on 05/11/2011 5:19:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
The man who likely has done more than anyone to put the libertarian philosophy of freedom and small government on the political agenda probably will make another run for the presidency: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.
Paul is always upbeat, but lately he's had more reason to be, as he sees libertarian ideas bubbling up from the grass roots.
"People outside of Washington are waking up," he told me, "and they're getting the attention of a few in Washington."
Paul has been in Congress more than 20 years, and much of that time he's played a lonely role, often being the only representative to cast "no" vote on bills to expand government.
"Twenty years ago, there weren't very many people around that would endorse these views. So ... I'm very pleased with what's happening. There are more now, but the problems are so much greater."
Because bigger government creates built-in resistance to cuts.
"Everybody has their bailiwick they want to protect: 'We know the spending is bad. But don't touch my stuff.'"
The biggest growth is in entitlements. Recently, after constituents yelled at them, Republicans backed off on their reasonable plan to try to make Medicare sustainable.
"This is one of the places where good conservatives and good libertarians have come up short. ... We get a bad rap that we lack compassion. A liberal who wants to take your money and give it to somebody else ... grab(s) the moral high ground."
At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, Paul floated a novel idea: "Would you consider opting out of the whole system under one condition? You pay 10 percent of your income, but you take care of yourself -- don't ask the government for anything."
The CPAC crowed applauded. But liberals like MSNBC's Chris Matthews mocked him, sneering that anyone who accepted Paul's offer would have no access to federal highways, air safety, food inspection, cancer research or defense.
Paul laughs at Matthews' shallow criticism. Ever the constitutionalist, he'd like to privatize the federal highways someday, but he notes that even now they are largely financed by the gasoline tax -- essentially a user fee. As for air and food safety, he's sure the airlines and food companies have no desire to kill their customers and that careless companies would be disciplined by competition and the tort system. He claims that government stands in the way of a lot of cancer research.
In other words, it's foolish to assume that just because the government doesn't do something, that it wouldn't be done at all.
"(Matthews is) using fear," Paul said. "They all do that ... use fear to intimidate."
A member of my studio audience asked Paul about the coming vote to raise the debt ceiling.
"They're probably going to ... (but) we shouldn't raise it. We should put pressure on them. If you took away the privilege of the Federal Reserve to buy debt, this thing would all come to an end because if you couldn't print the money to pay for the Treasury bills, interest rates would go up and Congress then would be forced (to cut spending)."
But smart people say we need the Fed to keep the economy going.
"The people who benefit from big government spending love the Fed. ... The Fed is very, very detrimental. You cannot have big, runaway government -- you cannot have these deficits -- if you don't have the Fed."
We libertarians say government is too big, but one thing it is supposed to do is provide for the common defense. Paul criticizes conservatives who support an aggressive foreign policy and says much of what is called "defense" is really offense. "I don't want to cut any defense," he said.
He added: "You could cut (the military budget) in half and even (more) later on because there's nobody likely to attack us. Who's going to invade this country?"
Ever the optimist, Paul says, "We have a tremendous opportunity now because most people realize government's failing ... ."
Yet he's a realist: "I think ... our problems are going to get worse ... before we correct them."
So, now you are comparing longtime FReepers to Islamofascists because they oppose homosexual "marriage"?
Your zot cannot come soon enough.
Freedom of Association and Assembly - Legal Dictionary The right to associate with others for the purpose of engaging in constitutionally protected activities.
It describes FR, not marriage.
zot
Slimy.
“I get the feeling you guys would be comfortable in a Muslim country.”
Odd of you to use THAT smear after what you’ve said against Christians in this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2718171/posts?page=136#136
You hate religion as a whoole, don’t you?
You mix apples and oranges and think you are clever. Seriously, how young are you? Free association comes from the First Amendment and has NOTHING to do with marriage.
He had to be a kid. He had no clue what freedom of association was or where the phrase comes from. I find that stunning. Honestly.
The youth of today are not taught anything about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or our history and what it means to be an American.
We might do with a thread or three dedicated to listing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but I’m not the person for that job -IF such a thing is needed.
I know my typos would make a mockery of the task.
zot
We got it!
Good question. And I jumped out of perfectly good airplanes in the US Army.
Your turn, mommya. Exactly what do I fear?
Or you can get raw with these strings. Either way, the violin is sweet yet lethal.
Do it!
Thank you Jim!
A twofer....
“And I jumped out of perfectly good airplanes in the US Army.”
Yeah, some of those Herc Bird drivers are terrible.
Left lane with left turn signal on and weaving all over the sky.
Terrible I tell you!
/ kidding.
See Post 150.
To be added or removed from the VK/ZOT list, FReepmail Darkwing104.
And "the_conscience" makes it a Paulbot ZOT twofer.
should be people be allowed to marry their goat, their child if consents?
No and if you think any other marriage is OK then you are an idiot and a sicko who needs mental help.
it is one man with one woman otherwise to allow people who get off in an unnatural way to be married is to allow all kinds of marriage
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.