Posted on 02/20/2007 8:59:49 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Ron Paul, the Real Republican?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
By Radley Balko
When you read about a vote in Congress that goes something like 412-1, odds are pretty good that the sole "nay" came from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. He so consistently votes against widely popular bills, in fact, that the Washington Post recently gave him the moniker "Congressman 'No.'"
Paul isn't a reflexive contrarian--he doesn't oppose just to oppose. Rather, he has a core set of principles that guide him. They happen to be the same principles envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution: limited government, federalism, free trade and commerce -- with a premium on peace.
When most members of Congress see a bill for the first time, they immediately judge the bill on its merits, or if you're more cynical, they determine what the political interests that support them will think of it, or how it might benefit their constituents.
For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly.
This hasn't won him many friends in Congress, or, for that matter, his own party. It hasn't won him influential committee assignments or powerful chairmanships, either. Those are generally handed out to the party animals who vote as they're told. An incorruptible man of principle in a corrupt body almost utterly devoid of principle, Paul is often a caucus of one.
Paul recently announced his intentions to run for president in 2008. For the few of us who still care about limited government, individual rights, and a sensible foreign policy, Paul's candidacy is terrific news....Continue reading
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Your support would be quite welcome. Heck, Missouri Synod Lutherans are good Absolute Predestinarians, like Calvinists.
Are you saying you'd like to sign up for Ron Paul?
According to OrthodoxPresbyterian's post #393 to me, he's not on his staff. But his post sure reads that way. Sloppy writing. I think he's getting frustrated that everyone didn't just roll over and sing praises to Paul.
I'll take him at his word that he's not on his staff. But who knows. His claim not to be could also be cover to make up for an inadvertent slip. I've read enough of his stuff to strongly question his veracity.
His vote on the non-binding resolution put the nail in his coffin and all your spinning and half-truths today have only made it worse.
It's not a good idea to try and push his candidacy right after he made a huge blunder. The damage is done and he is doomed. If you don't think so YET, meet me here after the election and we'll see if you got it right (or at least have a lengthy list of excuses).
Hell no!
Don't ever ping me or you and I and the moderator will be going around, and I won't lose!!!
True, but Ron Paul voted for a Resolution advising the President to go after whomever was responsible for 9-11, since nobody was 100% certain exactly which state actors or non-state actors were directly responsible.
The President determined that the Taliban government of Afghanistan was one of the responsible parties, and so "went after" them as instructed by the Resolution. However, various Non-State actors were also involved; and as Ron Paul stated, it's difficult to imagine how to Declare War on a Non-Country. So, Ron Paul supported a Resolution which would authorize military force against Non-State actors as well.
That's beside the point. The subject of his doctorate is irrelevant with respect to the subject at hand.
You just seemed dismayed that you might not be accepted, as a Lutheran. I wanted to offer you my warm assurance that your concerns were unwarranted.
best, OP :-)
Ron Paul = NO
Hey Ron ....never never never ever go against our brave fighting men and woman......you are never never never ever gonna get our support you surrender monkey. Got it?
Ok, thanks. I look forward to seeing if his campaign can get some steam.
Fair enough, but it does show that he is at least intelligent enough to understand the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution, unlike most of the morons on Capitol Hill.
I wasn't dismayed. I was simply sarcastic without the /s tag. Your comments about all the Calvinists on his staff being the in crowd was pretty telling, and worthy of sarcasm.
You, and all those who oppose Ron Paul, would be opposing him regardless of when I posted a Thread advocating his campaign.
You're upset that I am correctly pointing out that the current Government of Iraq is dominated by radical Islamic Terrorists. It weakens your ability to smear Paul as an "appeaser". You don't much like having your cheap, dishonest straw man arguments emasculated.
However, those of us who recognize that it is NOT in the US National Interest to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives to support a Government dominated by the same Islamic Terrorists who attacked our Embassies and killed 241 US Marines in Beirut, are signing up to support Ron Paul. And, we'll be working together in the months ahead to sign up our families, friends, neighbors....
There's almost a year till the first Primary. I'm just helping Ron Paul supporters get organized for the grass roots campaign ahead.
See you in the Primaries.
I'll be sure to keep you in the loop, best I can.
Best, OP
Thanks to you, it didn't blow over but you helped it start to 'boil over' with your innuendo and rubber-stamp repeats of liberal-composed half-truths.
The old saying is that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. You've done enough damage to his campaign that I am now feeling sorry for him having such pitiful backers.
You wouldn't feel happy for your fellow co-religionists if a Candidate you supported had a penchant for hiring Missouri Synod Lutherans? Thought they were good people, liked their honesty and work ethic, that sort of thing?
What would be wrong with feeling happy for your fellow Missouri Synod Lutherans?
You're just upset that I am correctly pointing out that the current Government of Iraq is dominated by radical Islamic Terrorists. It weakens your ability to smear Paul as an "appeaser". You don't much like having your cheap, dishonest straw man arguments emasculated.
Until you do that, you have no credibility here.
Yes, keep telling yourself that. Most of us saw through that set of twisted facts and half-truths generously supplied from liberal sources.
By making a big issue out of it, a lot of people who did not realize he was one of the 17 surrender monkeys, now are fully aware of it.
I'm waiting to see how much more damage you can do to him.
So, I'll say it this way: "Iraqi Government is now a Government dominated by self-confessed Islamic Terrorists"
Would you agree that an Islamic Party which has openly claimed Responsibility for their attacks on Americans are, at the very least, "self-confessed Islamic Terrorists"?
See you in the Primaries. :-)
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.