Posted on 06/24/2007 7:47:36 AM PDT by joeu
Paul’s doggedness in advancing the causes of individual responsibility and limited government could intimidate almost anyone who clings to the label “conservative” or “libertarian.” Perhaps that is why he avoids those abused designations and calls himself a “constitutionalist.” His philosophy is simple: “no government intervention, not in personal life, not in economic life, not in affairs of other nations.”
(Excerpt) Read more at amconmag.com ...
I've read a lot of stupid commentary on Ron Paul from people who don't like him. This was by far the most stupid yet.
I imagine after September we may see a few of the 'electable' candidates start to sway on that. Then you'll have candidates that no longer support the police action but want to keep big government on one side and Rep. Paul on the other. Not even a choice then (although I do wonder how the hawks here will feel about their candidate flipflopping on the issue).
Rep. Paul is probably the only Republican that can beat the Democrat based solely on the polls against the police action in Iraq. Someone that not only advocates limited government but votes that way consistently as well? A hands down winner.
I disagree. We have 2 - 3 candidates who can win the election....Unless we let our party get split by sideshows and minor candidates who waste our time and sap energy from the party.
In your dreams....
In your dreams....
Wait...listen to the Sunday talk shows. You can hear it in the voices of the current Senators. May have to revisit after September. Only an idiot would run for a nationally elected office on a position the majority of the American public disagrees with. Which would actually explain a lot about the majority of the current Republican candidates...
Surely you can't be serious. OK, he is not Presidential material necesarily. He has about as much chance of winning as you or I. But you have to respect a public serpent who leaves you alone and takes Gubmint off your back. Almost everything our Gubmint does is unconstitutional.
We need 423 more Ron Pauls in our legislature.
If that's what it takes to get our country back, yes.
“no government intervention, not in personal life, not in economic life, not in affairs of other nations.”
As set forth by our Constitution.
The only approach that I am willing to support.
BS
Who do you think you are telling ANYONE who to vote for, or against?
Americans can think for themselves.
Liberty, something not seen in the U.S. in generations.
He recognizes that it's too late to work within the system, and too early to just shoot the bastards (stolen from Claire Wolfe).
Politics is now a team sport.
Very little thought about which candidate has the right ideas, just root for your team.
Reminds me of High School.
Politics is now a team sport.
Very little thought about which candidate has the right ideas, just root for your team."
Wry, half-smile.
Designer has learned what it means to "be a team player".
And he will never try it again.
Like what "loony ideas" for instance?
Like what “loony ideas” for instance?
&&
That we brought the September 11 attacks upon ourselves.
Well, now, we certainly can't have that, now, can we? Especially not now, when we have this "globalism" thing going so well!
It’s a vision that will inevitably be ridiculed as naïve by the imperial intelligentsia who helped American into this mess.
Yup. Ridicule the man is what I say we should do.
We LIKE having fiat money! yes we do!
We like subverting our stupid old constitution!
Let's hear it for the status quo!
S-T-A-T-U-S QUO!
S-T-A-T-U-S QUO!
S-T-A-T-U-S QUO!
That we brought the September 11 attacks upon ourselves.
If that is your only response, then I think we need more examples of all those supposedly "loony ideas".
Have any others that you might like to discuss?
BTW; just suppose for the sake of arguing that Ron Paul is correct, and those bombings would not have occured if we hadn't been there in the first place; Then whose "loony idea" was it to be over there in the middle east taunting the Arabs into bombing us?
I mean; loony is loony, right?
It's not as if we didn't have any warning, because we had multiple warnings.
If one side says it is loony to irritate the Arabs, and the other side irritates the Arabs anyway, and then says "they bombed us out of the clear blue sky without any provocation" then who is the more loony?
---Article X of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution for the United States
You have got it just backwards. If it is not ALLOWED, it is FORBIDDEN to FedGov, much as you and they want it your way. Dr. Paul is far more correct and knowledgeable than your post makes YOU out to be.
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.