[Right-wing Librarian]

>>Oh Ron Paul is the man when it comes to the Constitution, although it’s the Constitution of 1901.<<

I wasn’t aware that we had a different Constitution than in 1901 and I don’t believe in a “living constitution”, like liberals.

>>I’m not here to defend 9-9-9, do the research and then ask yourself why the founder of the Laffer Curve (which is what Reaganomics was based on) has endorsed ‘9-9-9’. As for who he would appoint to head up the Federal Reserve, that train hasn’t even pulled into the station yet, let alone blown the whistle to leave the station.<<

I am aware of the Laffer Curve. Without a repeal of the 16th, replaced with a permanent “9-9-9” amendment, it would be an “open door” to corrupt politicians for a 20-20-20 plan.

>>Do you love that 214 million dollar earmark he voted for back in June that benefited what is commonly referred to as ‘Big Pharma’?<<

Well, actually, yes, I do. If Ron Paul did not earmark that money, it would have defaulted to Obama to spend as he please. I thought this topic had been thoroughly discussed already, so I am puzzled as to why this half-truths keep being posted about earmarks.

>>”Politics ain’t beanbag” ~ Finley Peter Dunne<<

Well, it is my belief that, in general, it is easy to throw insults. It takes more thought and energy to formulate substantive thought and communicate those thoughts with non-insulting words. This is, after all, Free Republic and not DU.

[mkjessup]

Whatever. You started this exchange with the comment that you "usually enjoyed my posts" so chalk these two up to being not so enjoyable, continue to do your research, and decide as you wish. I'll call the Paulbots 'bedbugs' and you can call them nice cuddly little kewpie dolls, is that ok with you?

(btw, the Constitution of 1901 in fact WAS different than the current Constitution, I suggest you take a look at Amendments 16 through 27?)