Posted on 11/24/2011 12:51:14 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Presidential hopeful Ron Paul says his rivals’ militant stances on “the defense of liberty” would make it difficult for him to support any of them for president should he not get the Republican nomination, because their positions would lead to bigger government. But the Texas congressman also told Fox News’ Neal Cavuto Wednesday that despite these concerns, he probably would not run as a third-party candidate.
“I would have trouble with what I heard last night because it is almost opposite of the defense of liberty that I’m talking about,” Paul told Cavuto, referring to Tuesday night’s presidential debate. “I mean, the Republican Party is supposed to be a party, you know, of defining small government — but when it came to the civil liberties, and the Patriot Act, and the invasion of privacy, and the Fourth Amendment — all these things — they wanted more government."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
And Reagan was not like Paul either.
Keep going with this free trade fiasco as we still have some manufacturing ( productive technology) left to be destroyed.
We have no jobs but we have massive debt. Who do think is causing this? the U.S. imports over 2 trillion dollar worth of foreign manufactured products per year. Imagine if we had that productive technology and jobs in the U.S. , then the U.S. would be the creditor nation and not China , the U.S. would have jobs and 9% growth not China which does. I guess this decline of the U.S. , decline of jobs,massive debt etc. is not good enough for you all , you must have us return to the stone age.
The democrats(international socialists) love free trade. They know that is the best way to destroy the U.S. and it is working very well. We have no jobs and massive debt and deficits.
Clinton signed the free trade deal with China. Obama has just signed other free trade deals with other countries.
How’s that free trade working out for you? China has 9% growth and is lending us trillions. that’s because they make most of the products we use.
Yeah I’m for reducing the size of government and reducing regulations on businesses but I’m for closing the border to manufactured products especially from China.
We can have capitalism (free unregulated markets) inside the U.S.. that doesn’t mean we have to allow foreign products from China nor workers from Mexico.
How about implementing the e-verify system then making it a felony to hire an illegal punishable by one year in a federal prison and massive fines for aiding abetting a federally wanted criminal? Also make it illegal to provide any kind of public assistance to illegals under the same concept. The illegals will self deport as they have started to do in, I believe its Tennessee, that adopted the stricter illegal policies. Their employment numbers have even risen by, what, half of one percent since adoption. Seems to be working there,lets try it everywhere and see.
If you want to be a super power militarily AND ECONOMICALLY, you must act like one. To pretend anything else is what they call in Sanskrit “koop mandook” mentality. It is the mentality of a frog living in a deep well who thinks he is living a grand life.
But like I said, as broke as we are now, why are we spending billions in middle-east protecting oil supplies to China with borrowed money from China? Win-Win for China, Lose-Lose for us.
If we keep pissing away money at the rate we are, we’ll be isolationist whether we want to be or not.
Actually this is easy to settle, read the US Constitution and you will find that Paul is closer to it’s truth then any of the rest of the field.
While I don’t agree with his stance that we caused the problem, even though I can make that arguement, the rest of what is says is dead on.
Cut the military by closing bases around the world.
No, they’re not. They’re contributing factors, but they’re not “at the root” of the problem, and the CRA has been studied repeatedly since 2009 and there’s no statistical evidence that the CRA was anything other than a minor issue in the debt bubble.
90+ day default rates on prime, conforming mortgages are now running higher than Fannie/Freddie mortgages.
The data is easy to find. Why some people continue to believe such nonsense is beyond belief.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/creditconditions/
Detractors keep wanting use the word "isolationism" on Ron Paul's foreign policy, and it's nonsense. What do they think? That Ron Paul wants to turn the US into North Korea? That's ridiculous!
Someone a while back, and I can't recall who, posted the following quote here on Free Republic and it fits:
In 1943 Garet Garrett wrote: ...If you say of this history that its intense character has been nationalistic, consistently so from the beginning until now, that is true. Therefore, the word in place of isolationism that would make sense is nationalism. Why is the right word avoided? The explanation must be for the wrong one, for that is what it is intended to do, it is the perfect political word. Since isolationism cannot be defined, those who attack it are not obliged to defend themselves. What are they? Anti-isolationists? But if you cannot say what isolationism is, neither can you say what anti-isolationism is, whereas nationalism, being definite, has a positive antithesis. One who attacks nationalism is an internationalist. The use of the obscurity created by the false word is to conceal something. The thing to be concealed is the identity of what is speaking. Internationalism is speaking. It has a right to speak, as itself and for itself, but that right entails a moral obligation to say what it means and to use true words...
Ron Paul is an anti-globalist, American nationalist. He cares about what is good for the American people, not what is good for the international bankers or international corporations that are protecting their overseas interests on our dime.
Everyone wants to believe that we are fighting Islamists. But every single NATO intervention since the end of the Cold War has done the precise opposite of fighting Islamism -- the fact is that since the 1990's we've empowered Islam and Islamism from the Balkans to Iraq to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and Libya -- and in the process, sent Balkan and Middle East Christians running for their lives. NATO destabilizes regions, it doesn't stabilize them. And even Israel's security has never been in more jeopardy since these interventions. NATO has been hijacked by the globalists to their bidding, none of which is in the interests of the American people.
There is a reason that Ron Paul has more support from US military members than all the other Republican candidates combined -- because those boots on the ground know that our interventions are not what we've been told that they are.
Now people can love or hate Ron Paul for whatever reasons you want. But there is no need to paint him into what he isn't to do that. The guy doesn't want to build a moat around the US -- or turn us into wimps. But we are broke and can't keep spending on forever wars to bankrupt ourselves because that is a bigger threat to our security than any terrorist will ever be.
I know. I know. Pick me!!!
It would be Ron Paul by a country mile!
BRAVO!!!! What an absolutely magnificent post. You (and Garet Garrett) have most eloquently hit dead center of the ten ring for a perfect bullseye!!! Thanks. I may have to steal that post sometime!
Well said, sir.
When I woke up this AM, I was expecting one or more ad hominem attacks on this. Happily surprised, but then again it's probably just a matter of time.
Just an FYI, Bokababe is NOT a “sir.” ;-)
My apologies for calling you “sir”. No offense intended.
I took it as a compliment, not an insult. But thank you for being considerate of my feelings.
Ron Paul may not be GOP Presidential candidate material, but conservatives owe him a debt of gratitude.
He has introduced the idea of freedom and limited government to a lot of young people.
Maybe by the 2028 election, one of them will be polished and eloquent enough to get elected POTUS and implement right wing libertarian policies.
Yes Eric, I agree that philosophically, Ron Paul may well be to this younger generation what Barry Goldwater was to the younger generation of the 1960's -- a generation that 15 years later ushered in Ronald Reagan. We can both keep our fingers crossed for that -- for their sakes.
But although I don't think that Ron Paul is "the perfect Republican candidate for 2012" because of his age, I do think that he's the best candidate we've got in -- being polite -- "a less than stellar field" of Republican candidates this go around. The only other candidates that I'd even momentarily consider voting for have a worse chance of beating Obama than Ron Paul does, so what's the point? What's left are either devoid of talent, ethics or substance and don't deserve my vote.
Just "hating Obama" wasn't enough in 2008 and it's not going to be enough in 2012, if there isn't a real Republican contender that we can believe in.
I wasn’t alive in ‘64 but I read all about Goldwater. There are some parallels between him and Ron Paul.
His campaign slogan was “In your heart, you know he’s right.”
His opponents said the same thing about him as they say about Ron Paul on FR....”In your guts, you know he’s nuts.”.
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.