Skip to comments.Is Ron Paul a Conservative Republican or is Opposition to the Fed Something Else?
Posted on 12/06/2009 9:15:17 AM PST by Anarchydeluxe
As a former conservative turned free-market libertarian, I have always been intrigued by Ron Paul's strong advocacy for the free market. After all, conservatives claim to stand on the same principles. So, I found it quite odd during the Republican presidential debates of 2008 when all of the other candidates actually had answers for how they would better "run" the economy. Having lived in Russia, China, and Europe, each candidate's answer scared me to death. Had they somehow missed the memo about how planning economies doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work? Cold War, anybody? The proper answer should have been that no president can or should try to "run" the economy, which Paul thankfully pointed out. It was at that moment, combined with hearing a Republican presidential candidate bash the free market and greed on Wall Street (failing to mention, of course, the government's own role in that) and watching George W. Bush abandon any pretense of a free market ideology, that I had a revelation about the modern Republican Party. Paul was the only true free-market representative on the Republican stage, and other Republicans viewed him as a threat. Fox News certainly treated him like a joke. But why? And what happened to the Republican Party, the natural home of free-market principles?
(Excerpt) Read more at anarchydeluxe.com ...
I consider him to be more of a conservative libertarian.
Neither; he is a distraction.
Abuse will begin in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
He can't even field dress a moose.
I am **CONVINCED** that Fox News is part of the leftist "controlled opposition". That they treat Ron Paul and his ideas as some sort "joke" and that his supporters are "nutz" is all part of the carefully scripted plan.
For me the epiphany came with Fox's complete blackout on news regarding Obama's eligibility. They have for years consistently refused to report on homosexual outrage stories. If the only access to news were Fox conservatives would still believe that homosexuals are the warm and fuzzy characters seen in TV sit-coms.
Now Fox is continually reporting 24/7 on how the health care bill is a slam dunk. This is absolutely certain to demoralize the opposition to this massive take over of the economy and our freedom.
So?...Why are we surprised that Fox treats Ron Paul as a joke and his supporters as nutty Don Quiote wanna-bees?
We should also be very wary of the Clear Channel guys: Rush, Beck, Hannity...etc. They do a good job of ignoring important issues too.
Ron Paul is a Paleo Con. Free Republic is run by and mostly home to Neo Cons and Establi Cons. Paul sounds like WW2 conservatives, who opposed American involvement and the entire new deal. And the Fed. Goldwater oppposed most of the civil rights movement.
Freepers are pro Palin. We don’t know her stand on the Fed or the New deal or affirmative action or much of anything else.
But only if you think that our banking system in this country *isn't* controlled by an international financial oligarchy.
Ron paul is an odd duck- one one hand, he’s dead on about certain issues, then he turns around and says some of htem ost off the wall stuff you could imagine-
Say what you will about Paul. I said some of it once also. I can not think of a man I would rather see as president of the USA right now. We need to tuck in our foreign obligations and get our fiscal house in order. He is a strong advocate of capitalism. I tend to like most conservative politicians that are ridiculed by yhe elite press. This also includes Palin.
You may be on to something about FOX.
Neil Cavuto seemed to be the only one that gave/gives Paul respect when interviewing him on monetary issues.
Be willing to bet if a real conservative, no BS, news station started up, it would clean FOX’s clock just like FOX is doing to CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the BS networks.
Ron Paul: Some very good stuff... Some Libertarian stuff not at all to my liking.
I think he is sincere and smart, but I wouldn’t vote for him against a true conservative.
Why? Was Thompson a joke? He was apparently most Feeepers choice. He ran a lame campaign and brought forward no issues. David Brooks on MTP said Palin was a joke. I thought it wasa BS comment by him . Let’s try to talk about the issues these people support.
What do you consider libertarian about Paul? Who do you consider a real Conservative and why?
I’m very curious to see who you’d consider a true conservative. Someone better suited than Ron Paul.
The deeper we go into the republican-democrat abyss, the wars, health care, cap and trade, the FED, the smarter Ron Paul seems to me. I used to think that his foreign policy was in the tinfoil hat realm but the longer the wars last I now believe he is absolutely correct. This after having spent 24 years in the Navy 1960/1984 in the go to war mode.
You don’t remember the presidential nomination debates he had when running?
Not this FReeper...not yet, anyway. You're right, I have no knowledge on where she stands on most issues, other than she is pro-life & pro-drill here, drill now; but being from Alasska, of course she would support the latter.
Does she have the same respect for the Constitution that Rep. Paul does? Does she advocate a return to the 10th Amendment & giving the States their rightful powers under the Constitution? Does she believe that our armed forces are to be used for DEFENSIVE purposes, rather than the current NeoCon view of making the world "safe for democracy"? Inquiring minds would like to know!
It really baffles me how so many so-called “conservatives” on here would prefer a communist economy in the US - as long as we also spend hundreds of billions per year to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan! And the entire justification is fighting a tiny band of terrorists whose membership by now is all post-9/11. All the while ignoring the wholesale enslavement of the country via inflation and debt.
Be willing to bet if a real conservative, no BS, news station started up, it would clean FOXs clock just like FOX is doing to CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the BS networks.
The **only** time I watch Fox News is if I am in a hotel room. They get on my nerves. Gee! At least CNN and the rest are open enemies of freedom.
LOL. The person(s) have to be living in order to be submitted.
You think anyone would submit the Newt? Another laugh.
You might want to read “Lords of Finance : The Bankers Who Broke the World” by Liaquat Ahamed. It will at least give you an idea of the evidence against a return to the Gold Standard. Following WWI France disregarded the Gold Standard while England tried to hold to it. At least temporarily France gained an economic advantage over England.
The other book you might want to check out is “The Great Wave : Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History” by David Hacket Fischer. Debasing the currency is as old as the issuance of currency, but oddly enough does not always lead to inflation. At times like today when there are deflationary pressures government can get away with inflating the money supply while avoiding inflation.
Now whether the government can manipulate the currency and create real long term growth is debatable. President Kennedy’s brain trust thought they could achieve that but the result was the stagflation of Jimmy Carter’s Presidency.
Rep. Paul IS a true conservative. That’s why the Lefties hate him w/ a passion & the NeoCons controlling the GOP either ignore or insult him.
I rather read the news on internet then listen to a bunch of overpaid entertainers.
“Ron paul is an odd duck- one one hand, hes dead on about certain issues, then he turns around and says some of htem ost off the wall stuff you could imagine-”
Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian. Not to be confused with liberal libertarians or anarchists. Understand the distinction, and you’ll understand Ron Paul. Reading the Constitution and seeing just where we fail to live up to it, would be a good start.
If you’re so interventionist that you support any war for any reason, and misconstrue that for being pro-military, regardless of Constitutional requirements for the legitimate declaration of war, you’ll dislike him.
If you misconstrue his opposing foreign aid, including Israel, for his being anti-Semitic, you’ll dislike him.
Me, I’ve admired the man since I’ve been politically aware, and think we could use a couple hundred just like him in the House and Senate. His vilification by self-styled conservatives has been shameful.
Goldwater was a founder of the Phoenix NAACP.
If Jefferson were alive today, he’d get treated pretty much the same as Ron Paul. As for “the Newt”, he’s yet another cog in the fake opposition - it’s time to rid ourselves of these Republican hucksters.
God bless Ron Paul. And you can shove your unfounded "he's a flake" accusations. He's for Constitutional freedom, regardless of how uncomfortable that might make you.
I oppose him for opposing Lincoln on the need to preserve the Union and opposing Reagan on the need to base cruisemissiles in Europe. I also believe that auditing the Fed will give Obama the opportunity to engage in a massive government takeover of private assets.
Sarah Palin doesn’t have a decades-long record as Ron Paul does, and so it’s not going to be laid out all pretty for us to inspect. I doubt she’s as dedicated a libertarian as he is. But, I’ve seen no reason to discredit her, most western conservatives have a libertarian streak, and that should by rights be writ large in an Alaskan.
I support them both. Ron Paul might be just what we need right now, but he’s never going to be President. Sarah Palin has the draw, the magnetism and the presence to make it to the White House. So, I’m not going to subject her to some sort of libertarian litmus test. She strikes me as being libertarian in the way that Reagan was libertarian, and so long as that holds up to scrutiny, I would be thrilled with that.
No need to know anything, It's enough that God wills it./s
Lincoln and state’s rights is a very old debate, and Rep. Paul holds a very defensible, intellectual point of view on the matter. He does not advocate dissolution of the Union, he points out the overreach of the federal government in having done what it did at that time.
Cruise missiles in Europe represent foreign entanglements, it’s foreign aid and it’s on shakey ground Constitutionally. I happen to agree with Reagan regarding their deployment in Europe, despite this. That does not prevent me, however, from understanding exactly why Rep. Paul opposed them. His is a voice of Constitutional conscience, and we need that now more than ever.
As I have understood his argument, it is that the slave states would have freed the slaves for compensation, which is demonstrably false. It also overlooks the fact that several (7?) states had seceded before Lincoln's inauguration.
I disagree with him on war against islamofascists
I disagree with him on legalization of drugs
I disagree with him on free trade
I find him to be way too much of an isolationist
I agree with him on abortion, guns, limiting federal government and activist judges.
I’ll vote for him against a liberal, but he’s not on the top of my list.
Looks good on paper...And there was a time when this applied...However, the world has gotten much smaller since the founding Fathers conceived the beautiful idea of staying out of international affairs...
I think one has to take a broader look at what constitutes the 'defense of the U.S.'...
Were we defending the U.S. by getting involved in the 2nd World War??? I'd say yes...Are we defending the U.S. by installing missles in allied countries in Europe??? Again, I'd say yes...
Korea may be up in the air but you can bet there are a lot of S. Koreans who are happy we got involved...
And Israel??? From a Biblical perspective we MUST protect Israel...The Founders of course had no idea that a couple hundred years down the road God would move His people back to the land He promised them...
That situation is meaningless to Ron Paul and apparently his supporters...So no Ron Paul for me...He's the most pro Constitution politician out there...But he needs to get outside the box and take a look around...
This is simply not true. If anything the U.S. was less "isolated" at the time of the founding that it is now. It was surrounded on all sides by hostile or potentially hostile powers throughout most of the nineteenth century including possessions of the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, and the French.
Goldwater was a founder of the Phoenix NAACP.
Apologies. My language was imprecise. He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the major piece of Civil Rights legislation that continues to control our interactions to this day.
Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.
Isn't this excactly what the libs say: medicine has gotten much more complex since the time of the founders, transportation has gotten much more complex since the time of the founders, education has gotten much more compmlex since the time of the founders, citis have become much denser and the second ammendment no longer makes senese like it did in the time of the founders, etc.
Free trade agreements threaten national sovereignty I opposed both the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, both of which were heavily favored by the political establishment. Many supporters of the free trade market supported these agreements.
Nearly six decades ago when the International Trade Organization was up for debate, conservatives and libertarians agreed that supranational trade bureaucracies with the power to infringe upon American sovereignty were undesirable.
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 96 Apr 1, 2008
You disagree with this? As a conservative are you not repulsed by the ever greater power we give to foreign bureacrats?
Well the role of Congress it to talk (debate) and vote. He does both of those. Hope we can find another big-military, inteverntion-loving, Islam-obsessed candidate for 2012. I mean McCain did so well by holding the opposite positions to Paul on all these things.
That's why I admire Rep. Paul like I do. From what I've seen about Rep. Michele Bachmann, I have been positively impressed as well. The FREEDOM INDEX of The New American magazine is an important source of info for me. I wish that more of our fellow FReepers would begin to use it as well.
I disagree with Ron Paul on isolationism, both in trade and foreign policy.
Say what???? Rep. Paul is by far the most pro-free-trade Member of Congress...& how can you call him an "isolationist" when he has the non-interventionist foreign policy of the Founding Fathers: one that believes that our military should be used for the DEFENSE of the United States, instead of chasing demons world wide?
The "isolationist" whining is getting very dull after all of these years.
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.