Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment
grist.org ^ | 10/16/07 | Amanda Griscom Little

Posted on 10/16/2007 9:45:44 AM PDT by traviskicks

Enviros may roll their eyes at a candidate who dismisses the U.S. EPA as feckless and disposable, who believes all public lands should be privately owned, and whose remedy for an ailing planet is "a free-market system and a lot less government." But Ron Paul, the quixotic libertarian U.S. rep from Texas, has a cult following online second only to Barack Obama's, and has won unexpected attention in the GOP presidential debates with his provocative ideas.

Some of those ideas arguably have environmental merit. Paul is known for his zealous opposition to the Iraq war, which he duly notes causes pollution and the "burning of fuel for no good purpose." He wants to yank all subsidies and R&D funding from the energy sector, which many believe would benefit the growth of renewables. A cyclist himself, he has cosponsored bills that would offer tax breaks to Americans who commute by bicycle and use public transportation. Still, his libertarian presidency would, among other things, allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, boost the use of coal, and embrace nuclear power. Moreover, it wouldn't do diddly about global warming because, Paul reasons, "we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather."

I called Paul up on the campaign trail in Iowa to get the skinny on how the environment figures into his small-government agenda.

For more info on his platform and record, check out Grist's Paul fact sheet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the environment?

A On energy, I would say that the reliance on the government to devise a policy is a fallacy. I would advocate that the free market take care of that. The government shouldn't be directing research and development because they are bound and determined to always misdirect money to political cronies. The government ends up subsidizing things like the corn industry to develop ethanol and it turns out that it's not economically feasible. So, my answer to energy is to let the market work. Let supply and demand make the decision. Let prices make the decision. That is completely different than the bureaucratic and cronyism approach.

On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they're much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor's private property -- water, air, or land. It is very strict.

Q But there are realms of the environment that, by definition, can't be owned, right? How would you divide the sky or the sea into private parcels?

A The air can certainly be identified. If you have a mill next door to me, you don't have a right to pollute my air -- that can be properly defined by property rights. Water: if you're on a river you certainly can define it, if you're on a lake you certainly can define it. Even oceans can be defined by international agreements. You can be very strict with it. If it is air that crosses a boundary between Canada and the United States, you would have to have two governments come together, voluntarily solving these problems.

Q Can you elaborate on when government intervention is and isn't appropriate?

A Certainly, any time there's injury to another person, another person's land, or another person's environment, there's [legal] recourse with the government.

Q What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?

A You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don't invite the government in to review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it's a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections.

Q Would you dissolve the EPA?

A It's not high on my agenda. I'm trying to stop the war, and bring back a sound economy, and solve the financial crises, and balance the budget.

Q Is it appropriate for the government to regulate toxic or dangerous materials, like lead in children's toys?

A If a toy company is doing something dangerous, they're liable and they should be held responsible. The government should hold them responsible, but not be the inspector. The government can't inspect every single toy that comes into the country.

Q So you see it as the legal system that brings about environmental protection?

A Right. Some of this stuff can be handled locally with a government. I was raised in the city of Pittsburgh. It was the filthiest city in the country because it was a steel town. You couldn't even see the sun on a sunny day. Then it was cleaned up -- not by the EPA, by local authorities that said you don't have a right to pollute -- and the government cleaned it up and the city's a beautiful city. You don't need this huge bureaucracy that's remote from the problem. Pittsburgh dealt with it in a local fashion and it worked out quite well.

Q What if you're part of a community that's getting dumped on, but you don't have the time or the money to sue the offending polluter?

A Imagine that everyone living in one suburb, rather than using regular trash service, were taking their household trash to the next town over and simply tossing it in the yards of those living in the nearby town. Is there any question that legal mechanisms are in place to remedy this action? In principle, your concerns are no different, except that, for a good number of years, legislatures and courts have failed to enforce the property rights of those being dumped on with respect to certain forms of pollution. This form of government failure has persisted since the industrial revolution when, in the name of so-called progress, certain forms of pollution were legally tolerated or ignored to benefit some popular regional employer or politically popular entity.

When all forms of physical trespass, be that smoke, particulate matter, etc., are legally recognized for what they are -- a physical trespass upon the property and rights of another -- concerns about difficulty in suing the offending party will be largely diminished. When any such cases are known to be slam-dunk wins for the person whose property is being polluted, those doing the polluting will no longer persist in doing so. Against a backdrop of property rights actually enforced, contingency and class-action cases are additional legal mechanisms that resolve this concern.

Q You mentioned that you don't support subsidies for the development of energy technologies. If all subsidies were removed from the energy sector, what do you think would happen to alternative energy industries like solar, wind, and ethanol?

A Whoever can offer the best product at the best price, that's what people will use. They just have to do this without damaging the environment.

Q If we're running out of hydrocarbon, the price will go up. If we had a crisis tomorrow [that cut our oil supply in half], people would drive half as much -- something would happen immediately. Somebody would come up with alternative fuels rather quickly.

A Today, the government decides and they misdirect the investment to their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and there's nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create diesel fuel or ethanol. The money is spent for political reasons and not for economic reasons. It's the worst way in the world to try to develop an alternative fuel.

Q But often the cheapest energy sources, which the market would naturally select for, are also the most environmentally harmful. How would you address this?

A Your question is based on a false premise and a false definition of "market" that is quite understandable under the current legal framework. A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the "cheapest energy sources," as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.

To the extent property rights are strictly enforced against those who would pollute the land or air of another, the costs of any environmental harm associated with an energy source would be imposed upon the producer of that energy source, and, in so doing, the cheap sources that pollute are not so cheap anymore.

Q What's your take on global warming? Is it a serious problem and one that's human-caused?

A I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don't think there's a conclusion yet. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument. If you study the history, we've had a lot of climate changes. We've had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If there are weather changes, we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather.

To assume we have to close down everything in this country and in the world because there's a fear that we're going to have this global warming and that we're going to be swallowed up by the oceans, I think that's extreme. I don't buy into that. Yet, I think it's a worthy discussion.

Q So you don't consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?

A No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus -- those are immediate threats. We're about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that's going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up.

Q What, if anything, do you think the government should do about global warming?

A They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don't emit poisons and contribute to it.

And, if other countries are doing it, we should do our best to try to talk them out of doing what might be harmful. We can't use our army to go to China and dictate to China about the pollution that they may be contributing. You can only use persuasion.

Q You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address global warming?

A It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are worthwhile, but treaties that have law enforcement agencies that force certain countries to do things, I don't think that would work.

Q You believe that ultimately private interests will solve global warming?

A I think they're more capable of it than politicians.

Q What's your position on a carbon tax?

A I don't like that. That's sort of legalizing pollution. If it's wrong, you can buy these permits, so to speak. It's wrong to do it, it shouldn't be allowed.

Q Do you think it should be illegal to emit harmful pollutants?

A You should be held responsible in a court of law and you should be able to be closed down if you're damaging your neighbor's property in any way whatsoever.

Q Who would set the law about what pollutants could and couldn't be emitted? Congress?

A Not under my presidency -- the Congress wouldn't do it. The people who claim damage would have to say, look, I'm sitting here, and these poisons are coming over, and I can prove it, and I want it stopped, and I want compensation.

Q You've described your opposition to wars for oil as an example of your support for eco-friendly policies. Can you elaborate?

A Generally speaking, war causes pollution -- uranium, burning of fuel for no good purpose. The Pentagon burns more fuel than the whole country of Sweden.

Q Do you support the goal of energy independence in the U.S.?

A Sure. But independence does not mean to me that we produce everything. I don't believe governments have to provide every single ounce of energy. I see independence as having no government-mandated policy: If you need oil or energy, you can buy it.

Q What about being independent from the Middle East, so we're not buying oil from hostile countries?

A I think it's irrelevant. We wouldn't be buying it directly, we would be buying it on the world market. I don't think the goal has to be that we produce alternative fuel so that we never buy oil from the Middle East. The goal should be to provide all useful services and goods through a market mechanism instead of central economic planning or world planning. That system doesn't work.

Q What role do you think coal should play in America's energy future?

A Coal is a source of energy and it should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. I think we're smart enough to do it. Technology is improving all the time. If oil goes to $150 a barrel because we've bombed Iran, coal might be something that we can become more independent with. I think technology is super, and we are capable of knowing how to use coal without polluting other people's property.

Q But coal technology has been proven to harm people -- with poisons like mercury and asthma-causing particulates -- so should old-style coal plants be allowed to continue operating?

A Use of the technology I mentioned to prevent harm to people, even if it costs more for the coal producer, is another example of how costs must be internalized to the energy source. To the extent coal can be efficiently produced in a way that does not pollute another's property or another's physical body, it will be chosen as a viable energy source. Certainly no producer of energy or anything else has a right to pollute or harm another's property or person.

If coal is not competitively priced when all costs to keep production safe are internalized to the producer, then coal will not be purchased or produced. I do not happen to believe this will be the case, but it is for the market to sort out, not politicians in Washington. It may be that, from time to time, as other energy sources become scarce, "safe coal" will be viable even if it is not at some other point in time.

Q What's your take on nuclear?

A I think nuclear is great; I think it's the safest form of energy we have.

Q Ethanol?

A I don't think anything's wrong with ethanol -- it's just not economically competitive. It's only competitive now because those who produce it get subsidies.

Q What environmental achievement are you most proud of?

A Nothing really special, other than trying to explain to people that you don't need government expenditures and special-interest politics to promote safe, environmental types of energy. That comes about through a free-market system and a lot less government, and I think that's the most important thing I can contribute.

Q You mentioned something in a past interview -- the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending?

A I'm not sure I understand that. Green Party?

Q You had said in another interview, "I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign."

A Green Citizens?

Q No, scissors, like you cut paper with.

A Oh, I don't recall exactly that. But I have a lot of environmentalists that work with me very closely and support these issues.

Q Who is your environmental hero?

A Nobody in particular.

Q If you could spend a week in a park or natural area in the United States, where would it be?

A There's probably hundreds of places. I probably have gone to Colorado more than any place, around Telluride and Ouray.

Q Can you describe your connection to the natural world? Have you had any memorable outdoor or wilderness adventures?

A My favorite thing is riding bicycles, and at home my hobby is raising tomatoes. I live on the San Bernard River in Texas and I belong to an environmental group that works very, very hard to protect the natural aspects of that river.

Q Can you elaborate on what you've done personally to reduce your energy and environmental impact?

A Well, no, other than the fact that I'm just always aware of doing anything damaging to the environment. I don't think I do anything that damages it at all. I don't ride my bike because I think I'm destroying the environment by driving my car; I ride it because it's a great way to be outdoors and enjoy the environment.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: energy; environment; libertarian; ronpaul; shrimpindustry; surrender
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
To: traviskicks
I won't participate often in Free Republics very own two minute hate ritual with Paul playing the part of "Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People", but for any readers who might be interested in where Paul stands and has stood on the various issues of the day...here is a link to over 900 articles and speechs by Dr. Paul himself.

Winston's diaphragm was constricted. He could never see the face of Goldstein without a painful mixture of emotions. It was a lean Jewish face, with a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard -- a clever face, and yet somehow inherently despicable, with a kind of senile silliness in the long thin nose, near the end of which a pair of spectacles was perched. It resembled the face of a sheep, and the voice, too, had a sheep-like quality. Goldstein was delivering his usual venomous attack upon the doctrines of the Party -- an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it. He was abusing Big Brother, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, he was crying hysterically that the revolution had been betrayed -- and all this in rapid polysyllabic speech which was a sort of parody of the habitual style of the orators of the Party, and even contained Newspeak words: more Newspeak words, indeed, than any Party member would normally use in real life. And all the while, lest one should be in any doubt as to the reality which Goldstein's specious claptrap covered, behind his head on the telescreen there marched the endless columns of the Eurasian army -- row after row of solid-looking men with expressionless Asiatic faces, who swam up to the surface of the screen and vanished, to be replaced by others exactly similar. The dull rhythmic tramp of the soldiers' boots formed the background to Goldstein's bleating voice.

Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room. The self-satisfied sheep-like face on the screen, and the terrifying power of the Eurasian army behind it, were too much to be borne: besides, the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically. He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia, since when Oceania was at war with one of these Powers it was generally at peace with the other. But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State.

21 posted on 10/16/2007 10:50:01 AM PDT by KDD (A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
Ron Paul 2008! Slogans instead of solutions!

Still waiting.

In detail, what is Paul going to do and how is he going to do it?

NO slogans. NO sound bite answers. Actual serious plans. Screaming “He will protect the 2nd Amendment” “he will dismantle the IRS” are not answering how and what he would do. Those are slogans, not an agenda or a plan.

22 posted on 10/16/2007 10:50:11 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Yo Democrats : Don't tell us how to fight the war, we will not tell you how to be the village idiots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Instead of just screaming,

Lie number one. I didn't scream at you.

try one time answers the questions about your god Paul.

Lie number two. I do not worship any politician.

What, and How, is Paul going to do to implement any of these “ideas”.

I can only speculate. Right now, congress stands in the way of all of his proposals. I suppose he would have to make the energy program a priority and compromise on some of the excessive spending the Democrats and Republicans want in exchange. Because excessive spending is certainly something he would veto normally. But that's only my guess. Why not write or call his campaign and ask them? Your winning personality is sure to get you a prompt reply, I'm sure.
23 posted on 10/16/2007 10:52:53 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

It’s clear you don’t understand the basic idea of LESS GOVERNMENT. What’s Ron Paul’s “plan”? What’s he going to “do”? He’s going to end all the various government programs that are out to “help” people, not revamp them or create new ones. It’s really quite simple.


24 posted on 10/16/2007 10:53:56 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: t_skoz
Let’s see the statistics, if you have them.

I noticed Paul didn't present any statistics to back up his claim. ;)

25 posted on 10/16/2007 10:55:02 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
Right now, congress stands in the way of all of his proposals.

And would continue to do so if he were ever (by some 'miracle') become President.

26 posted on 10/16/2007 10:56:25 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

What the hell are you talking about? I called you out. You said “Factually untrue and absurdly silly. Another example of how Paul simply makes up his own reality.”

I listed 4 independent sources showing that Dr. Paul knows exactly what he is talking about. You listed no sources and instead of trying to defend your position you back away from the argument and call names.

You’ve lost the argument. Go away, the adults would like to discuss conservatively principled, free market economic conservation here.


27 posted on 10/16/2007 10:57:15 AM PDT by t_skoz ("let me be who I am - let me kick out the jams!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mysterio; traviskicks; MinnesotaLibertarian

May no attention to Johnny, he’s a sad little troll.


28 posted on 10/16/2007 10:59:55 AM PDT by t_skoz ("let me be who I am - let me kick out the jams!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

I provided the statistics in post 13.

Man oh man, who was that guy that used to post “SHOW THE STATISTICS TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS?!!!”

He got banned a few years ago but I still miss the humor in those posts. That phrase will live on in FR-infamy!


29 posted on 10/16/2007 11:02:07 AM PDT by t_skoz ("let me be who I am - let me kick out the jams!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
And would continue to do so if he were ever (by some 'miracle') become President.

Possibly, possibly not. Given that he theoretically would veto a great deal of spending, they might be interested in compromise.
30 posted on 10/16/2007 11:03:35 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: t_skoz

Sadly, it appears he’s a Minnesotan too. Don’t worry, most of us are actually quite friendly.


31 posted on 10/16/2007 11:10:58 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
Possibly, possibly not. Given that he theoretically would veto a great deal of spending, they might be interested in compromise.

Given that most of Congress would be willing to override his vetoes, he'd still have Congress in his way. (And frankly, given some of the nutty stuff I've heard from Paul, I'd actually want that.)

32 posted on 10/16/2007 11:17:28 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: t_skoz
For people who claim to be such lovers the the US Constitution, you all are demonstrating a remarkable ignorance on how our system a Govt works.

Still waiting. IN DETAIL tell us, what in particular would Paul do, and how would he do it. Screaming slogans like "He will abolish the IRS", "He will end the WAR" does not answer the question.

Picking a Presidential Candidate is a serious business, not a popularity contest. Takes more then mouthing some slogans and slamming everything and everyone else to be qualified for the Presidency.

Paul fails in the basic qualifications for President in a whole lot of ways. Perhaps most importantly his complete inability to understand how a President is required to defend the USA.

Look at his drivel about a "tradition, non Interventionist Foreign Policy" The USA has NEVER had any such thing. The Founders fought an Undeclared Naval War with France and fought the Barbary Pirates. During the 1920s and 30s, at the height of the Isolationist movement, we fount a number of banana wars in Caribbean and Central American.

Defending the US does not start and stop at the US border. It never has. No matter how relentless the Paulbots try to ignore reality, the world is a much more interdependent place then it was in 1792.

There are any number of regions the US cannot afford to fall under the sway for hostile powers. The free flow of oil from the ME is a vital US economic, thus a vital National Security, issue.

Yanking the troops our of the ME so that the whole region falls under the influence of China, via their proxy Iran, would be an a gross dereliction of the President's oath to defend the USA.

That Paul advocates exactly that course of action indicates his complete unfitness to be President.

33 posted on 10/16/2007 11:17:38 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Yo Democrats : Don't tell us how to fight the war, we will not tell you how to be the village idiots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

You could first explain how it is possible to take initiative action under any enumerated powers of the executive branch.

The only unilateral policy powers he has are to stop the war and rescind executive orders.

He can’t introduce legislation. He can only veto it.

It takes a Congress to tango.

And if a Republican becomes president, he’s bringing a Republican majority with him.

Unless they pander to Dems for a supermajority, they are going to know real quick that keeping Dr. No happy is the only way to get anything through.

In stark contrast to typical presidents.


34 posted on 10/16/2007 11:18:39 AM PDT by runderwo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian

Please read Post 33. Nice you have feelings. That Dr Paul mouths the slogans you want to hear doesn’t qualify him to be President.


35 posted on 10/16/2007 11:19:54 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Yo Democrats : Don't tell us how to fight the war, we will not tell you how to be the village idiots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

If you look around you’ll see that much like a screaming child, nobody is paying any attention to you. Go poop in another sandbox.


36 posted on 10/16/2007 11:26:06 AM PDT by t_skoz ("let me be who I am - let me kick out the jams!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Still waiting. IN DETAIL tell us, what in particular would Paul do

You keep chirping that same old mantra time and time again when you have been given a link to over 900 speech's and articles outlining his positions. That is more information in the public domain on Ron Paul's views then all the information on the rest of the candidates combined.

I suspect that it is not information about Paul's policies that you seek however. I suspect that you hope that through enough repetitive inane posts as the one I referenced by you are intended to posit an inaccurate picture of a candidate whose political ideas are "pie in the sky".

Would you have me start posting the 900 articles and speech's that answer your question one at a time?

37 posted on 10/16/2007 11:52:58 AM PDT by KDD (A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: t_skoz
I will give you a simple example of how you Paulbots are still not answering the question.

Reagan ran on cutting the taxes to drive up revenues. Gave specific data how how that would work. Was going to use those increasing revenues to fund a massive military build up. Once we were in a position of Military superiority, he would negotiate with the Commies.

In each step he had a detailed specific plan. Ron Paul, and you his mindlessly followers, have NO plans. You merely scream slogans. “Paul will abolish the IRS”.

Ok HOW? What he going to replace it with? How much revenue will that generate? How is it to be collected? etc etc etc

So HOW is Paul going to do a single thing? So far NO one has the slightest hint, including Paul.

Slogans are not solutions. Time the Paulites grow up and face that painful reality.

38 posted on 10/16/2007 12:24:38 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Yo Democrats : Don't tell us how to fight the war, we will not tell you how to be the village idiots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
FIND WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR HERE, LIKE AN ADULT. THERE ARE 900 EXAMPLES OF DR. PAUL GIVING SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN REGARDS TO HIS IDEAS.
39 posted on 10/16/2007 12:40:45 PM PDT by t_skoz ("let me be who I am - let me kick out the jams!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
FIND WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR HERE, LIKE AN ADULT. THERE ARE 900 EXAMPLES OF DR. PAUL GIVING SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN REGARDS TO HIS IDEAS.
40 posted on 10/16/2007 12:41:28 PM PDT by t_skoz ("let me be who I am - let me kick out the jams!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson