Posted on 03/12/2007 6:35:53 AM PDT by sdnet
Political maverick and Texas House member Ron Paul formally announced his candidacy for the president of the United States this morning during the “Washington Journal” call-in program on C-SPAN.
Paul stands as one of the last remaining believers in strict enforcement of the Constitution and a limited federal government in Washington D.C. Paul ran unsuccessfully for the White House in 1988 under the Libertarian ticket, but now caucuses with the Republican Party. His political platform includes low taxes, individual liberties and a principled belief in the right to life.
His presidential exploratory committee formed earlier this year stirred up his enormous grassroots support from heartland voters, small government believers and fed-up Republicans who believe current GOP candidates offer no real solutions to an expanding federal government and refuse to tackle America's important issues, such as illegal immigration and an erosion of American's civil liberties.
(Excerpt) Read more at smallgovtimes.com ...
"He's probably running just behind Kucinich in the polls."
But they vote the same on the Iraq war.
Note that in your quote (is that from Paul?) there's a link back to Wikipedia's entry on the Al Dawa party. The text of the link says Al Dawa carried out the beirut bombing, but the wikipedia article it offers as "proof" says nothing of the sort. I find it very strange that Mr. Paul has to play fast and loose with the facts or outrright lie so often when he discusses the war. It seems that if the Iraq War was such a bad idea and directly contravened by the Constitution, he should be able to tell the truth and make his case quite ably.
Even if every word in your quote were true, Paul has lied about the war, colluded with America's enemies and wants use to LOSE (not change course, but LOSE) in Iraq. That makes him a traitor, and his justifiable animosity toward the Maliki government is just a tool in his effort to bring our country to a major defeat.
Back a traitor if you want, it's a free country. But don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Both of them voted against the supplemental on Friday, and both said they did so because they want an immediate pullout.
Which candidate is that? I don't think I've actually said I was supporting Ron Paul. I find him very good many issues and wish the Republicans in congress were more like him.
But, I don't remember actually endorsing or choosing him for president. I hang out here on Ron Paul threads because nutjobs like you get hysterical and I find that amusing. Yeah, I have questioned why we bother fighting Al Qaeda when illegal immigration is, to me, a much more immediate threat and pretty much ignored.
The only people I believe I have actually "endorsed" here on Free Republic are Mary Carey and Cthuhlu. Which of those two is a traitor?
Dang, that's precious. Where would you and folks like you on FR be if you couldn't call it hysteria every time somebody disagrees with you?
HA HA.
Thanks for the entertainment.
You're welcome. "My Gym Partner is a Monkey" is on Cartoon Network right now, if you hurry you can catch the last 20 minutes.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Please, dude, I do not want to know what you do with your "monkey".
On a serious note, you're a Rudy supporter, right?
Seriously, Ron Paul is a traitor. Assuming that only Rudy lightweights would oppose him is pretty silly.
Actually, I figured you want Rudy because of whatever it is you do with your "monkey".
Seriously, I haven't made up my mind except I know I am not voting for McCain, Rudy, or Romney. Hannity can kiss my ass.
Thank you for the compliment, even though it was a bit 'left-handed'. i came to the conclusion long ago whilst watching with disgust the tactics of Democrats registering as Republicans during primary season in order to have nominated the person they percieved to be the weakest (or most vulnerable) Republican candidate for a particular office.
If it was wrong for the Democrats, it is wrong for Libertarians such as myself, who are NOT Republicans.
Contrary to your last assertion however, Ron Paul decidedly does not "suck". What DOES suck is that people actually believe that there is a discernable difference between the two major political parties, in spite of decades of disillusionment and disgust from the hands of candidates/nominees/electees of both major parties.
Reagan supported George Bush over Ron Paul for president in 1988.
"He wanted a proper declaration of war"
The Constitution does not prescribe a specific manner how war should be declared. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all waged wars with Congressional authorizations of force, but not a formal declaration of war. For Ron Paul to think that he knows the Constitution better than our Founding Fathers is judicial activism.
And for more on the topic, read post 176 of this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1806178/posts
Ron Paul subscribes to the activist belief that he can interpret the Constitution better than the Framers. Did James Madison violate the document he wrote when he prosecuted the First Barbary War as Secretary of State and the Second Barbary War as President?
Where did he say he wanted to hand Al Quada a victory? I don't remeber his saying that. And because the admittedly obnoxious Sheehan opposes King George II this makes her a traitor?
No.
there's a link back to Wikipedia's entry on the Al Dawa party. The text of the link says Al Dawa carried out the beirut bombing, but the wikipedia article it offers as "proof" says nothing of the sort.
You obviously only followed the first Link, concerning the Kuwait Bombing, not the second Link concerning the Beirut Bombing.
Try again.
Even if every word in your quote were true, Paul has lied about the war, colluded with America's enemies and wants use to LOSE (not change course, but LOSE) in Iraq.
No, he hasn't, you're just lying.
That makes him a traitor, and his justifiable animosity toward the Maliki government is just a tool in his effort to bring our country to a major defeat.
You support giving Military and Financial support to an Iraqi government which knowingly and willfully harbors terrorists in violation of the principles of the 2002 State of the Union address. I guess that makes you the Traitor, huh?
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.