What kind of monsters are they? ...
You are right, since morality is not necessary anymore!... Yes, we are the new CONSERVATIVES...
Posted on 02/21/2010 6:01:04 AM PST by bayliving
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) ran away with the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference Saturday, with 31 percent of the vote. Paul's libertarian conservative message has made him a hero to small- government Republicans for years, but this is the first CPAC straw poll he has ever won.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicsdaily.com ...
I don’t quite understand the attacks on Ron Paul. His views are extreme Constitutionality. It is the polar opposite of Socialist/Marxist Obama-Pelosi-Reid, who are taking us off a cliff. I would rather have Ron Paul then RINO Mit Romney! Maybe a candidate who is more palatable to mainstream America, like Jim DeMint.
And Glenn Beck is Paul’s biggest fan.
Proof positive that CPAC has become a steaming pile of:
What kind of monsters are they? ...
You are right, since morality is not necessary anymore!... Yes, we are the new CONSERVATIVES...
Ron Paul is a crazy loon.
I know it may be easier to name call without substatial facts, which is the M.O. of the left, but how about discussing the actual issues for a change! What specific issues do you disagree with...
Let’s try this point by point:
>Are you in favor of abolishing the Fed?
Maybe is the most I could say on that. I’m not sure our system can really do without it. It just needs to be better run. In any case, there is no way the Fed is likely to be going anywhere and it isn’t a decision by the president anyway, so even vaguely claiming it as a possibility is bunk.
>Are you in favor of a non interventionist foreign policy?
That’s not even close to what Paul proposes. He favors a isolationist fantasy foreign policy where the whole world will love us if we just stay home. That’s utter nonsense.
>Are you in favor of an honest monetary system?
Considering the monetary system is an issue of the Fed and you already went there, this is redundant. It’s not within the powers of the office in question anyway so moot.
>Are you in favor of spending less than we produce?
Yes, but I don’t need an isolationist (America blaming at that) loon to get there.
>Are you in favor of minimum government involvement in your >daily life?
Again, I don’t need him for that, and without a complete overhaul of congress this is again a pie in the sky, not something he can actually do.
>Are you in favor of maximum personal freedom?
Yes, and I’m also in favor of cookies and puppies, but what does that actually have to do with a choice of presidents? If this is what passes for an argument with you, then give up.
>Are you in favor of abolishing the sixteenth amendment and >the income tax?
Again, nonsensical overreach of the office. We’re electing a president not a dictator. You want to change the Constitution then you have to change both congress and the state legislatures. The President has nothing to do with it. Learn some civics for a change.
>Are you in favor of the US leaving the UN and acting like >an independent and sovereign nation again?
Are you actually claiming the U.S. is not sovereign? We ignore the UN when it suits us and use it for political cover when it suits us as well. We’re still sovereign.
The attacks on Ron Paul come from GOP party bootlickers. That’s pretty much how I see it. How dare the common rabble have a say.
Sorry, but I don’t buy these “straw polls” at CPAC. This is the same event that thought they needed to reach out to Homosexuals.
I’ll give this straw poll the same credibility that I gave the straw poll that said Huckabee would win the presidency.
It’s pretty easy to namecall without substantial facts. You yourself said that.
Ugh! before breakfast!
>The attacks on Ron Paul come from GOP party bootlickers. >That’s pretty much how I see it. How dare the common rabble >have a say.
Of course. All the common people are in favor of Paul. That’s why he does so well in elections. Oh, wait, never mind. He doesn’t do well now does he? Maybe the common person has a little more sense.
Happens. We have all done it at one time or another...
Of course, some people just live to post that way...:)
Oh, and I should note, I did take your argument apart addressing each chunk. That’s not name calling. Paul fans are generally unrealistic in the extreme, not only on foreign policy but domestic as well.
Imagine living in a house where when you want to turn on a light switch, you have to call the electric company to send enough power to your house to do so.
That is what Ron Paul wants to do to the U.S. Right now, we have strategic forces stationed around the world at the agreement of our allies. We can react to a sudden military situation with a moments notice.
If Ron Paul has his way, all U.S. forces would be based in the U.S., which means if there was a need to react militarily to any situation in another part of the world we would need to get not only our forces, but command and control operations, logistical lines, and communications set up before we could react.
Sorry, that is unrealistic and exceptionally dangerous.
Even if Paul wasn’t a loon (and he is), he’ll be 77 in 2012.
What kind of idiot would propose running a 77 year old as the candidate of their party in a presidential election... other than the 77 year old idiot himself?
:)
You want substance, chew on this: It’s naive to suggest that if we leave them (Islamo-fascists) alone, they’ll leave us alone. This is what Ron Paul believes. The Truthers are a bunch of fruit cakes too. I don’t believe 9/11 was an inside job, unlike what a lot of Ron Paul supporters believe.
Get off your class horse, overtaxt. Who designated you and yours the keepers of the conservative flame?
Because people think being internationally isolationist and protectionist is lunacy in this world of ours doesn’t make them “GOP Bootlickers”.
Palin/Paul 2012 is more likely. And by that, I mean Rand Paul.
Ron Paul is a great Constitutionalist Congressman, but he's just too old to run for President again.
Rand Paul, on the other hand, is well on his way to winning the US Senate seat in Kentucky, and is plenty young enough for national office. Once Rand wins in Kentucky, he'll probably end up as the new torchbearer for the Paul Faction of the GOP. (Admittedly, with ole dad Ron still serving as "elder statesman" for the faction).
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has already endorsed Rand Paul, striking a blow against the GOP party establishment support for Trey Grayson; and if the Paul Faction continues to grow in strength and influence, she'll be looking to lock up that support in the primaries. Getting a return endorsement from Rand Paul in exchange for the Veep slot on the Palin ticket would allow her to do so.
Ergo, Palin/Paul 2012 is more likely than Paul/Palin. IMHO.
If Ron Paul had his way, we’d be fighting the war on terror here in this country rather than over there in some third world rat hole on the other side of the world.
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.