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 ...
You are either devoid of children, or else of humor.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I'm voting for him too. The disdain he gets from the Giuliani crowd here is further proof the we need a real repbulican in the race.
What, according to you, has substance? The American Conservative Union, unlike you, feels that there is substance to Ron Paul
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Which candidate has never agreed with the dems on anything? If you can find one, I'll vote for him/her.
The article didn't say which Party he was running under.
He'll get at least 15 or 20 votes...if the asylums allow absentee balloting.
Congressman Paul is running for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States.
However, the Third Parties of the Right are already lining up behind Ron Paul's candidacy for President. Some of their most important leaders have already declared that they will vote Republican this election -- IF Ron Paul is the Nominee.
I'm voting for former Vietnam Combat Flight Surgeon, and Leader of Ronald Reagan's Electoral Delegation from Texas: In 2008, I'm Voting for RON PAUL! |
In your dreams "Dr. Superior Intellect"
Enjoy President Hitlery's Administration when the conservatives sit at home again on election day. That 2k6 performance by the Republicans was just wonderful, wasn't it?
Get used to being a minority party.
Slowly, now...A "Castroesque" speech is one that lasts multiple hours and is a rambling mess.
A speech is "Castroesque" regardless of the substance of the speech.
Shall I explain it with a puppet show now or do you get it?
Thanks for the flag.
I will say that he could win both the L and C nominations and still win less than 4% of the vote in the general elections. If he were to win the R nomination, he would almost be guaranteed 25%. Win all three and that probably puts him at a guaranteed 30%
Getting the word out to the masses who believe in the things he believes in but have become disenfranchised over the last ? years of big Government Republican/Democrat governing and it's a landslide.
So our work is cut out for us no matter how we register.
Just because I'm smarter than you...
Enjoy President Hitlery's Administration when the conservatives sit at home again on election day.
Gee. I thought you already stayed home. You guys have been staying home since 1980 when the LP pulled its best numbers against Reagan when the usual LP folks came together with the low-tax liberals to break the 1% barrier.
What I really don't understand is that you think that you benefit somehow from this strategy. Follow me on this: You stay home. By staying home, you ensure that your political polar opposite takes office. This somehow pleases you. Then, when the next election comes 'round, you threaten again to withhold support because of the insufficient purity of your allies' views or performance in office.
But if they aren't sufficiently pure, do you not think that you will be hurt most by the election of your political polar opposite?
I submit that this strategy only makes sense if you are dishonest about your true political intentions.
I don't consider you the "enemy". I respect Congressman Hunter a lot on several important issues. He's probably my "third choice" after Paul and Tancredo.
I'm just, as a fiscal conservative, very uncomfortable with Hunter's penchant for huge Government Pork-Barrel Spending -- as bad as the Republican Congress has been on Government Spending, Hunter's abysmal ratings from the National Taxpayer Union have been bringing the average Republican rating in the House down. He voted 0 out of 19 on the Flake Anti-Pork Amendments (favoring the infamous "bridge to nowhere" and every single other Federal pork-barrel earmark) as compared to Ron Paul's perfect 19 out of 19 score in opposing Federal Spending... it's just hard for me to feel enthusiastic about a guy who blows through taxpayer money like it's his own personal lottery winnings, when we're already putting our children and grandchilden hundreds of billions of dollars into MORE debt every year.
In addition, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has been at the vanguard of homeschooling, private schooling, and establishing uniquely Christian colleges. As an Orthodox Presbyterian, I am deeply concerned for the historic independence of the Christian Church.
Ron Paul is the ONLY socially-conservative Candidate defending the independence of the Christian Church against Federal "Faith-Based Socialism: "Government funding of religious organizations will transform them into adjuncts of the federal welfare state, more concerned about obeying federal rules and regulations than fulfilling the obligations of their faith." Ron Paul (source). Every other so-called "social conservative" candidate, including Duncan Hunter, actually FAVORS this underhanded Orwellian Federal assault on the Freedom of the Christian Church.
For the sake of the Independence and Purity of the Church, Christian Conservatives must support Ron Paul.
I'll read this later. My concern is that last vote. I never did hear why?
Ron Paul is voting against continued US support for the Government of Iraq. I believe that his position is correct.
As I have said, the ruling government of Iraq is dominated by the psychopathic gang of murderers known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Islamic Al Dawa Party, who are the very same Islamic Terrorist Parties which bombed the US & French Embassies in Kuwait, and murdered 241 United States Marines in Beirut in 1983. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, of the Al Dawa Party, was the Bureau Chief of the Al Dawa Party's terrorist "Jihad Office" in Damascus in the 1980s and was thus heavily responsible for Al Dawa operations in Beirut, while parliament member Jamal Jafaar Mohammed of his ruling coalition is one of the "Kuwait 17", still under a Kuwaiti death sentence (in absentia) for his direct involvement in the vicious attack on the US Embassy in Kuwait!
So, let me ask you a question: Given that the 2002 State of the Union Address established that the United States MUST NOT lend support to Nations which "harbor terrorists", do you believe that the Federal Government should continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American Lives to prop up an Iraqi Government which is dominated by Anti-American Terrorists?
If not, then Ron Paul is the only Principled Conservative choice.
Best, OP
Please add me to the Ron Paul list.
I'd like to see a Paul/Hunter or Hunter/Paul ticket. They're the only two worth looking at right now that have announced.
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.