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 know once before I came to the comclusion that you're an ignorant obnoxious pompous loudmouth with a vastly inflated opinion of his own wit, but decided to see if you'd changed. You haven't changed a bit - have a great day.
So many snide retorts immediately avail themselves just concerning Rudy Giuliani's hair (merely to start at the top).
However, I will instead take the high road, and remind you that we'll probably be running against Hillary.
Er, yes. Ahem.
Let's just say that the GOP doesn't necessarily have to run Brad Pitt in order to win the support of you folks who vote on looks alone.
Hunter's probably my third choice. I also like Tancredo, but I don't think he's gonna last in the Primaries (has he even formally announced?), which would make Hunter my second. Ron Paul is far the better Fiscal Conservative, but on most other issues Hunter rates way above most of the remaining field, in my book.
Please add me to the Ron Paul list.
You got it!
Why, because YOU say so, get real. Yes, most of you republicans (I was one for 28 years, but no longer) and democrats consider anyone that even mentions being pro-Constitution a nut job (unless your favorite liberal needs to use that as a ploy to gain your vote). Wouldn't want a Constitutionalist in charge of anything. The very thing this Country needs right now, desperately. Blackbird.
AU72: The article didn't say which Party he was running under.
Of course it did.
"Paul ran unsuccessfully for the White House in 1988 under the Libertarian ticket, but now caucuses with the Republican Party."
NOMINEE FOR UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR AWARD
His chances of winning are 0 in 1,000,000 to the power of 4.
The only way this hand job ever becomes President of the United States is if a Nuke strike takes out all of the Eastern Seaboard during a state of the union address...while Paul is visiting Trans-Siberia.
And even then, I would not like his odds of surviving the Air Force flight home.
Go ahead and add me to the Ron Paul list, OrthodoxPresbyterian.
Thanks.
I've heard of this guy a few times, but in a lifetime of politcal junkie junkets I've never come across so much as a photo of this dude.
....until now.
That doesn't make him a Republican. Bernie Sanders caucuses with the 'rats but is a Socialist Party member. I didn't read where he tore up his Libertarian party card.
Hunter's fiscal conservatism IS a problem. It's his only negative thus far. His support for tax cuts helps, fortunately.
As for Ron Paul's opposition to the war, I imagine it's on the grounds that it's not actually being fought like a war?
THAT was utterly uncalled for.
You wanna talk about "surviving the Air Force flight home" -- how about maybe having to stitch a Vietnam Pilot's guts back together so he could survive his Air Force flight home?
You are obviously awful proud of that spit and polish dress uniform of yours, VaBthang4, but you don't do much credit to it talking sh*t about a former Air Force Combat Flight Surgeon, Dr. Ron Paul, whose duties in Vietnam included making sure that the flyboys did "survive the Air Force flight home".
Show some respect for the guys who had to get the troops back home from Vietnam alive -- PUNK!
 |
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! |
 |
HOLY CRAP A PICTURES WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS HUH!!!!
:o)
;-)
They know it, and like the abused red-headed step child, they like it. I recently changed to independent after 28 years of dedicated broken glass support for the retards in the stupid party. Never again. I will vote for RP, DH, TT and possibly (considering his age) Fred Thompson. Let the house of cards crumble if need be. Jail would be a better option for 90% of that DC beltway crowd anyway. Sorry for the rant, but FReedom and Constitutional Government simply scare the hell out of most here anymore. Blackbird.
Well, yes and no. Ron Paul was adamantly opposed to invading Iraq without a Congressional Declaration of War, and does not believe that the United States should ever enter into military action for the purpose of enforcing UN Resolutions (Ron Paul believes that we should pull out of the UN altogether -- "get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US" is an old saying of his). On the other hand, he did personally introduce a Congressional Declaration of War on Iraq, stating that if we were going to invade Iraq it should be done right, by the Constitution.
However, now that Saddam and his sons have been killed, the stated purposes of the President's 2003 Ultimatum, which was specifically directed and worded against the Person of Saddam Hussein and his sons, have been fully and victoriously acheived. At this point, Ron Paul does not believe that US Armed Forces should continue to be deployed to Iraq for the purposes of "nation building" -- especially given that the Iraqi people have shown their "gratitude" by electing a Parliament dominated by Shi'ite Anti-American Terrorists:
According to the stated principles of the 2002 State of the Union Address, the Federal Government must not lend any support whatsoever to Nations which "harbor terrorists".
Given that Saddam and his sons are dead, the stated purposes of the 2003 Presidential Ultimatum have been acheived, and the Iraqi People have elected to Power the self-confessed and even judicially convicted Terrorists of the Islamic Al Dawa Party, Ron Paul believes that the Government of Iraq does not merit the further spending of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American Lives in its continued support.
I'll happily vote for the only candidate who feels that the Constitution means exactly what it says. But then I'm one of those crazy all-or-nothing strict constructionists.
Not the point, it was what he voted with them on. In this case, surrender. Sorry, that was unforgiveable and trumps any other position he may have.
No way, no how, Ron Paul.
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.