- Libertarian "America Loses" barking moonbats,
- RINO globalist commie open-border Free Traitors,
- GOProud Gay Mafia infiltrators.
Posted on 02/20/2010 8:52:39 PM PST by Maelstorm
Texas Representative Ron Paul won the 2010 CPAC straw poll tonight, beating out both Mitt Romney & Sarah Palin, and raking in 31% of the vote. Paul, a Libertarian who is perhaps best known for his aggressive stance against the Federal Reserve, has a dedicated group of followers which have again affirmed their influence within the Republican party.
What this means for a 2012 bid for presidency is uncertain, however; Paul’s supporters were a vocal and visible group when he ran for President in 2008, but in the end, Paul walked away with only a small percentage of the actual votes. According the Huffington Post, Paul was the most anticipated speaker at the three-day convention, and his followers flooded the auditorium to hear him speak; yet when the results of the straw poll were announced, the crowd booed loudly.
Perhaps this shows just how much Paul’s old-school approach to Republicanism fractures the GOP. Ron Paul is an unorthodox figure in the political scene; his libertarian manifesto, The Revolution, is a New York Times bestseller; he rallies against neoconservatives and liberals alike while preaching states rights, free-market economics, and small government.
(Excerpt) Read more at gather.com ...
George Washington warned about exactly what you are saying, but the American people wouldn’t listen.
Jindal has not brought the promised reforms to LA but rhetoric — the state debt is staggering.
Here on FR you have to take Palin off the list because she is supporting McCain and that makes her a RINO. You can’t have Ann Coulter on the list because she disagrees with the birthers. That makes her a RINO. Thompson and Jindl have both been called RINOs here at one time or another. Get the drift? We’re too busy eating our own here on FR to be of any use in recapturing control in 2010 or 2012.
Politics used to be about picking the least corrupt and least dishonest of the choices offered. Today, politics in most cities (and some states) is about picking the most corrupt and dishonest of the choices offered...with the help of ACORNuts, some unions, soros, et al. Take Obama's 'lead contributor' according to opensecrets, UCLA. Is it the UC part or the LA part that is corrupt, or is it both? Is UCLA now a money laundering operation for Buddhist monks and soros? so many questions, so little time 'til November. Inquiring minds want to know.
I completely agree. I am amazed at the number of people here who seem to thrive on "writing off" potential candidates as no one is a pure and conservative as they are. Funny thing is that so often, their opinions are not, IMO, rooted in conservatism, but in their own personal populist leanings.
The problem with liberty in our society is that if we have it, we must also give it to others. Conservatives who want to control the lives of others are really no better than liberals who want to do the same. Conservatism is a set of principles, not a set of litmus tests. Principles can be applied differently with different results, and still be rooted in conservatism.
Of course, I expect to be chastized for this post since it no doubt will gore someone's ox and make me a RINO in someone's eyes.
On this ‘commandeered by Wall St.’ thingy....I’ve only had a few [dozen] finance and economics courses, and worked with the business/gov’t/finance system for a few [dozen] years, so I’ll defer to your analysis...once I figure it out. I guess I need some foundation work on the premise. Can we at least agree that most small businesses need a banker and work from there? And if we need a banker to finance the purchase of a home...same same? And since we need these bankers wouldn’t it be nice if they were successful and didn’t go under every few years, with a ‘new’ banker calling our loans? Dunno bout you, but I have enough trouble changing insurance co’s every few years, sure am glad I never had a mortgage or loan ‘called’ (tho’ I admit that when they started the revolving mortgage servicer address change thingy I was pissed). And so IF, I repeat IF, we can agree that successful banks are better than bankrupt banks, what system other than the FDIC, FSLIC and the FED would you have? Does Paul have one in mind?
bump
Research the concept of fractional reserve banking, and keep in mind the idea behind counterfeiting. Pay special attention to the process behind the creation of a loan, and where the money actually comes from. Also, check out the mathematical possibility of all debt actually being paid off. (Hint: there will ALWAYS be more debt than assets.)
Then, look up legal tender laws which protect the banking monopoly’s fiat currency from competitive forms of money.
Then, study the founding fathers’ views on the Bank of England, and the Coinage Act of 1792. The rarity of gold and silver kept the US government from spending too much and embarking on unsustainable, empire-building ventures, which is what crashed the British Empire.
This thing is a scam that’s been going on for hundreds of years.
If by 'this thing' you mean 'fiat money' then I understand where you're coming from...and if, given that, you mean you disagree with the fed taking us off the gold standard to federal reserve notes instead of silver certificates, then I think I'm close to agreeing that was a bad decision. Could the USA exist as a 'service based' economy on the gold standard? Pretty sure we'd have to become a 'manufacturing based' economy again to 'go back to the good old days', wouldn't we? Does Paul have a way to get there? I get the feeling we'd both agree that a lot of laws MUST be repealed to get there (about 50-60 years of Dem congress laws would be a good start).
Well said, Thanks.
In fairness, Paul supporters essentially created the Tea Party concept.
Years ago William F Buckley, ostracized and booted the Birchers out of the Republican Party as nuts.
Our Party is now in a civil war and it is time to alienate and isolate the Ron Paul nuts.
They are not conservative and Ron Paul despised Reagan and he hates that we defended ourselves against terrorists.
“In 1988 Ron Paul was nominated by the Libertarian Party for president and ran against the Reagan agenda, at one point telling the Dallas Morning News, Reagan was a “dramatic failure” as President. Paul also said, “I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration”, Reagan was “a failure, yes, in, in many ways”. Transcript of Paul’s remarks on Meet the Press. Also, see Youtube video of Paul on MTP.”
see Youtube video of Paul on MTP<<<<<
You got a link to the video? I’m not seeing any results.
It was you who brought in the immoral, not I.
What I asked was how do you justify saying the party’s are immoral currently (which I do not disagree with), yet excuse how the Paulies plan to take over the party as “not illegal, just immoral.”
Since when does one immoral act make another immoral act moral?
And, out here we do have strong candidates running that will work to turn it around and have strong backgrounds in finance. I’m fighting for them as much as I can.
But, watered down libertarians who would weaken our security will not accomplish what we all need in a real world.
And, how do Paulies embrace number six?
6 - FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS - Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.
I thought they despised foreign interference and meddling.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22379112#22379112
Here is the entire video of his 2008 interview with Russert on MTP, where he says a number of unbelievable things...
including...
comments about how the terrorists were provoked...and
how Reagan was a failure.
“start promoting Just for Men.”
-—good line.
I use just for men, but only for my beard.
I know this is frivolous, but I never found Romney very attractive either: his attractiveness just doesn’t come together, and lots of people think it’s an important selling point.
Of course, he’s a died-in-the-wool RINO, and here’s an interesting thing from this morning, as I was slowly waking up with the radio on at low volume.
I woke to an interview with a voice sounding a lot like Romney’s , talking in an enthusiastic way about both the CPAC conference and the new feature on the political landscape being Tea Parties sending their candidates in to compete, and I was SURE it was Romney talking, getting air time because he was the anointed RNC candidate, even this early.....turned out it was FOX journalist Eric Shawn , whose voice is indistinguishable from Romney’s.......
but I do believe that the RNC is starting to ever so subtly pushing Romney, starting NOW, as the inevitable Presidential candidate. No Palin, No DeMint, No anyone else, Just Romney./
You said it better than I ever could! Nail right on the head.
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.