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 ...
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 FOX’s 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.
Agree!
I rather read the news on internet then listen to a bunch of overpaid entertainers.
“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-”
*nod nod*
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.
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.
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.