Posted on 02/22/2010 6:28:24 PM PST by presidio9
Over the weekend, Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll for president. Many pundits immediately dismissed the win, for a lot of reasons. (The Atlantic did a roundup of all the "he's irrelevant" comments.) My take on Ron Paul is this: He says a lot of off-the-wall stuff, but his bottom line is that he's a limited-government libertarian. And he's not Mitt Romney, the establishment GOP choice. I think that's why he won.
Joe Scarborough likes to say that if you look at where Ross Perot did well in 1992, those are the same places that tea party candidates are doing well. That may be, but I think there's some overlap between Ron Paul supporters and the tea partiers, at least some of the younger ones. Ross Perot has a website, PerotCharts, that illustrates the government's fiscal responsibility; but Ron Paul supporters have an interactive site for those who want to meet up at campaign rallies (with over 100,000 people either already members or interested), and according to the timeline posted, it looks like many of them have joined in the last two years.
I came across a bit of a tea party manifesto, if you want to call it that, in Politics Daily on Sunday: "A Grassroots View of the Tea Party," written by Roy Nix, a golf pro in Florida. Here's how he describes the average tea partier:
"They don't dream of power, and they don't dream of telling their neighbors how to worship, how to spend their money, what kind of car to buy, what kind of food to eat and how to save the environment. They expect their neighbors to decide all of those things for their own families.
"They don't want big government, they don't want socialistic policies and they don't want to spend more money for things they don't need. They don't see Washington as Robin Hood, robbing the rich to help the poor, but as the Sheriff of Nottingham--taking their tax money and giving it to big business while we starve.
"They don't want to have to march in the streets, and they don't want to be 'activists' in politics because they have lives to live.
"They don't hate immigrants, but they don't like lawbreakers who come here illegally. They don't mind helping people, but they are out of money and want to help those closest to home first until their bills are paid off ...
"These lawmakers have forgotten what 'representative' means, and they end up in Washington doing what their party tells them to do, rather than what their constituents tell them to do ... And that's what's motivating so many who've joined the Tea Party movement."
Nix hits the nail on the head, in terms of the anti-Nanny State, limited government message of the tea partiers, and how all incumbents, not just Democrats, are at risk: "The Tea Party is sending a genuine grass-roots message to both Democrats and Republicans. And they'd better listen up and learn fast," he concludes. A New York Times/CBS poll from earlier this month supports this: Only 8 percent of respondents think that most incumbent members of Congress deserve to be re-elected; a whopping 81 percent said it's time to "give new people a chance." That's putting it nicely--I think if the election were held today, it would be a tidal wave against incumbents.
You are not "doing me a favor." You made the following asinine statement:
Ron Paul is the closest candidate the Republican Party has to Ronald Reagan.
I called you out on it. It was a stupid thing to say. I hope that hurst your feelings enough that you never say anything like it again.
Thus far, you have been unable to defend that statement any further than pointing to an entire book and telling me to read it. You seem to have enjoyed this book, surely one example linking Reagan to Ron Paul (or libertarianism in ANY form) must come to mind.
Let's say for the sake of argument that I say I have read every page of that book and it doesn't say anything approaching your claim. In other words, I'm calling you a liar. Can you defend yourself yet?
Ron Paul is an idiot, but he has plenty of audacity. I've never even heard him claim that he was Reagan II.
This is demonstrably untrue, just as all forms of Christianity are not the same just because the originated in Bethlehem.
You are twisting a lot of stuff here - I was not the one to introduce the word "philosophy" into the discussion. Second, you are unwilling to criticize your leaders for supporting Islam and instead you repeat their excuses. Islam is a dangerous ideology and preaches violence.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. The line you're taking issue here does not use the word "philosophy." None of the leaders I respect have ever "supported" Islam. As a matter of fact, neither do most of the leaders I disprespect.
I am opposed to baby killing and oppose gays imposing their private behavior on the public and am all for wars against those who attack us, but have found that libertarians agree with me on all 3 points when you discuss it with them.
To quote Dan Moynihan, you are not entitled to your own set of facts. The vast majority of libertarians are pro-choice, pro-gay rights. They get around foreign military involvement by saying that it's ok if we get attacked first. Of course, the nature of modern warfare is that it may be impossible to tell exactly where the attack came from, and it may be in our best interest to attack preemptively. Those last two are simple facts. If you chose to debate them with me, I'll simply consider you a lunatic, and see no point in wasting additional time one you.
Now, getting back to the idea that a tiny fraction of libertarians claim to be pro life, I would remind you that Ron Paul does NOT sufficiently for approval from pro life groups. You have the option of finding another pro-life libertarian (if such a thing truely exists), and you chose to back Ron Paul. I submit that you are not really as pro-life as you claim to be. And if you aren't, I fail to see how you could possibly make an accurate assessment of the pro-life beliefs of your candy-land political movement.
Here's my suggestion to you and people like you: The Right To Life is genereally considered the most or second most important political issue to actual Conservatives (as opposed to pretend ones like yourself). It is also the majority opinion of the voting public in its entirety. Instead of stinking up this website with opinions and candidates that are not Conservative, why don't you become more active on libertarian websites convincing others that life begins at conception, and the unborn has just as many rights as the mothers. You'd do a hell of a lot more good there.
Obviously you do not know the history of Socialism and Communism and have led a sheltered life without any exposure to any of these concepts. Maybe you would do yourself some good if you traveled a bit and tried living in a socialist country. If you want to be a defender of British socialists, feel free to do so, but this board is for conservatives.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. The line you're taking issue here does not use the word "philosophy."
Yes you do. No point pretending now. My original response was to a sentence that used the word philosophy.
None of the leaders I respect have ever "supported" Islam. As a matter of fact, neither do most of the leaders I disprespect.
You have shown support for Islam and defended it and peddled excuses for providing logistical support for Islamic terrorists. You also deny that Al Qaeda operates in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Are you sure that your agenda on FR is not to keep posting messages to defend the RINOs?
My problem with you is that you find every possible excuse to defend those who have provided logistical support for terrorists, released Al Qaeda terrorists from Guantanamo Bay and you even claim Gadhafi is a good guy now as he has given up WMD. What crock! And you show hostility to fellow Americans who oppose liberals. It is clear you are not a conservative but someone who is here to defend the RINO line.
You as well as I know that the real debate is your insistence that the above right to preemptively attack anyone they please extends to people who belong to the Islamic faith and to every individual. This is implicit in your defense of Gadhafi et al and the argument that Islam is a Religion of Peace because you conducted a survey and found that 999.999 million members of Islam are purveyors of peace.
The least you could do is not pretend to be a conservative. As far as I am concerned, Islam is a violent religion and is the cause of terrorism.
expect more claims by the Paul crowd...but dont buy it.
WRONG. Rep. Paul voted FOR the strike against Afghanistan not too long after 9/11. There was only ONE Member of Congress who voted against it, & it was uber-socialist Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).
You two monkeys might want to look into the rule about reading the (fine) thread before posting. That might save you from making asses out of yourselves in the future.
At the least, it should prevent you from misinterpreting that quote next time.
Chris, this is your cue to revise your profile page.
And libertarians, right? Only an idiot would persist in the argument that there is absolutely no difference between the various socialist systems, and between the British and Cuban systems specifically. You have my blessing to continue arguing stupid points. The only one I'm particularly concerned with is that Conservatism and Libertarianism are fundamentally system. And I'll correct you when you lie about me.
You have shown support for Islam and defended it and peddled excuses for providing logistical support for Islamic terrorists. You also deny that Al Qaeda operates in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Case and point: I never did, said or implied any of these things. People who lack the intelligence to win the argument frequently resort to lies where they can get away with it.
Tea Party >CPAC
I think we are in agreement with the idea that Islam sucks, so I'm not sure what you're point is here. Do you want to make a specific accusation against George W. Bush or someone else? If so, I would be happy to defend him. If you contend that I somehow defended Muammar al-Gaddafi, I'll let you know that the older sister of a close friend of mine was on Pan Am Flight 103. I went to her funeral. You're barking up the wrong tree my friend.
You libertarians seem to forget that war once made a bedfellow of Joseph Stalin for us.
I don’t want Ron Paul OR Mitt Romney!
HE was for it before he was against it. Brilliant - a constitutionalist John Kerry!!
“The Taliban never did a thing to us. The Taliban, we were paying them money up until May of 2001. They’re not capable, even if they wanted to, they’re not capable of touching us. So we’re over there, pursuing a war, spreading the war, and going into Pakistan. The American people don’t want it.” - Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-10-18/ron-paul-why-are-we-in-afghanistan/
A muslim fan of Ron Paul insists:
“Mr. Ron Paul from the start was an opponent to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan,Why is accused of lying ? What you offered ? have you write to congress?” ...
It’s awfully convenient that you have such a friend.
I note that our current President has been found to have invented friends to help him make political points.
There’s no point in offering you quotes from the book. You’re not going to change your mind. It’d be a waste of my time.
If I’ve misjudged you, and you really need an example of what we’re talking about, see the following post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2457178/posts?page=227#227
You seem to think a lot of people have to "invent" them.
Seriously, most well-adjusted people have lots of friends.
Perhaps PaulBots don't...? Are you perhaps....projecting?
What "claim" are you talking about???
Are you drunk? Or stoned?
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.