Skip to comments.Vanity: Let's have a rational discussion on Ron Paul and the Liberty Movement
Posted on 08/16/2010 12:09:43 AM PDT by citizenredstater9271
I want to have a sane discussion on Ron Paul and the growing Liberty Movement. Every time I or other freepers bring up we get people telling us Dr. Paul is crazy or we are crazy to support him and other constitutionalist politicians.
When I posted a video on the success of the Free State Movement in New Hampshire ppl responded with "your crazy" and hinting the movement had failed. How could ppl say the movement failed when they've had numerous successes?
I see liberals and commies such as this weirdo mock us which I would expect but why the outpouring of hate from the right?
I can't predict the future but I have a feeling the future of the GOP is in traditional conservative values and bringing back the Constitution and individual freedom. The original tea party belonged to the Ron Paul Republicans and Constitutionalists. Dr. Paul was raising money via moneybombs before the first tea party rally took place. Why are other conservatives reluctant to take note of this?
Dr. Paul's campaign was a true grassroots movement lead by ppl who want their liberty back from the gov. and who want to restore the Free Market. The Free State Movement is lead by ppl who want to restore the Free Market and end all the gov. control and marxism-lite. These movements are lead by true Americans and true conservatives.
When Bush was in office he was getting a bad name by a lot of conservatives who felt he wasnt doing enough to protect liberty and the free market. Now when movements and politicians seeking to do the very thing come along they are shunned by the mainstream GOP. Why?
Constitutionalism and the truly Free Market are where the conservative movement is headed. Let's take advantage of this while its still young. What say other Freepers?
Ron Paul? Gag me with a spoon! What is the draw to this loon?
He wants to bring back the Constitution and the Free Market. Did you read my original post?
Too bad his foreign policy dovetails with Cynthia McKinney’s, Code Pink’s, International ANSWER’s and Cindy Sheehan’s, huh?
What does that have to do w/ the Constitution or capitalism? I don’t support his foreign policy but that doesnt mean I need to reject him all together. The future of the GOP is the Constitutionalist and Liberty Movement.
People here are aware of Ron Paul. Whether they’re right or not is another question. Many here would like Ron Paul a lot more except for his foreign policy. Personally, I like him.
If you don’t get defense right, you’re out of the game.
I said I don’t support his foreign policy. I believe we need to finish the job in Afghanistan and Iraq. If u really did read my post youd see I’m only talking about economics and civil liberties. Foreign policy and the wars have nothing to do w/ anything I’m discussing here. Don’t change the subject.
I’m the same way. I have to keep explaining to ppl I HATE his foreign policy but I LOVE his emphasis on the Constitution and ending gov. control of the Free Market and ending the FED that took away the Free Market for good.
You’re also wrong with your timeline about tea parties.
People here like the tea parties, like constitutional government, like limited government. They don’t think that Ron Paul deserves 100% of the credit for those ideas. And they don’t like the foreign policy ideas.
Ron Paul is not the only one talking about limited government, but he is the only one with a foreign policy outside the conservative mainstream. To people here, he’s more notable for his foreign policy than his limited constitutional government message.
How will we afford the wars and defense with his fiscal policy though? I like a lot of his ideas but he is to extreme if we are serious about financing the war on terror.
Ron Paul is a milder Michael Savage. Both get a good idea once in awhile but when you look at the whole package, you walk away shaking you head.
I’m not changing the subject, N()()B. Even if Congressman Ron Paul is 100% correct on every domestic issue, his views on foreign policy, the military, Israel & the Arabs and the war on terror make him a crank with no place in national politics. Clear enough for you?
I don’t hate his foreign policy. But I know that Ron Paul is a tough sell here. Because people here like Palin, DeMint, Bachmann. They don’t have the track record on limited government that Ron Paul does, but they don’t have his foreign policy either.
Who else in Washington has talked about restoring the truly free market by ending the FED and going back to gold and silver (the only true money said the Founding Fathers)? Who else has defined their entire political policy by the Constitution and what the Founders originally intended for America? Dr. Paul is the only logical choice. I hate his foreign policy too but there are bigger issues at stake. We are witnessing America turn into the USSR. Taxes are going up. Illegals are pouring into America at an alarming rate and so are muslims. Dr. Paul is also for sealing up the border so think about that. Americans have lost their sense of pride in America. They want to see ppl like themselves in the white house not a closeted muslim marxist. They want the Constitution brought back to life and truly free market Capitalism brought back to life. Tell me who else will give them that?
While I’m not enamored by his foreign policy views - I do like him domestically. My overall view is that he’s an honest politician which is a rarity.
Paul is right about many things, but his foreign policy stands are so wrong that I cannot back him. They are dangerous for this nation.
We can afford them by moving all gov. programs back to the states so the federal gov. will have more money and by sealing up the border (he’s for ending birthright citizenship and deporting all illegals.)
If Dr. Paul becomes president there would still be many pro-Israel, pro-continuing the War on Terror in the House and the Senate. Dr. Paul wouldn’t be a king. Elect Dr. Paul for pres. then elect ppl into Congress who support our troops and Israel.
I really disagree with his policy of putting vanity posts in breaking news.
Well, Ron Paul’s supporters do like his positions on the issues, for the most part. I seem to like more of his positions than you even do.
Conservatives, Republicans, tea partiers, a whole lot of people these days, are wanting less government.
State after state are having primaries where RINOs are being challenged by tea party candidates. Sometimes the tea party candidate wins, sometimes the RINO. But the tea party candidates overall are doing quite well. These tea party candidates are for limited government. Rand Paul is likely to be a Senator in a few months. So, there are a lot of people right now pushing the limited government message.
So, there might be some specifics that Ron Paul is pushing that others aren’t pushing quite as much, but there are a lot of candidates pushing the overall limited government message.
The man is wrong on the first principle of conservatism. Keep the country safe.
Therefore, it would be best to steer efforts on principles you agree with and abandon the man.
How, exactly, can you consider the Free State Movement a success? Seems the libertarians who moved there were more than offset by all the Massholes who crossed the border for the lower taxes (that their favorite pols raise on them).
I told you guys to move to Vermont so you could start retiring socialists like Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy but you didn’t listen to me. You had to muck up New Hampshire which was already a reasonably dependable conservative state. Now, it’s RINOville.
The success of the tea party favorites shows Americans are waking up. Big government has strangled liberty for far too long.
The first principle of conservatism should be a truly free market. Meaning no FED, no taxes, no fiat money, gold and silver are money, gov. functions to PROTECT your private property and not take it, no propping up monopolies, no telling the banks to loan money to irresponsible ppl and cause a financial crisis, you get the idea.
Don’t worry. The Admin. mod will place this thread in the proper category.
They have half their goal of bringing 20000 liberty activists to New Hampshire. They are more active in state politics then any other group. They act for the original conservative principles and have won battles against gov. control of people's personal lives. Watch videos by Ridley if you want to know more about the Free State Movement.
You had to muck up New Hampshire which was already a reasonably dependable conservative state. Now, its RINOville.
Yes there are RINOs in New Hampshire but more then any other state? The Free Staters want to move away from that and put more pro-liberty and tea party candidates in New Hampshire's politics. We should support their movement.
That was the admin’s doing not mine.
The issues involve conservatism as well as the Constitution, and our Founding Fathers established a government which must protect its borders from enemy invasion.
You can talk Free Market all you want, but if we don’t protect our borders, this country will continue to deal with the illegal immigration and enemy infiltration problem as we know it.
Dr. Paul is right on a number of economic issues, but it’s not one or the other. It’s not the “economy” or “security”.
You don’t wish to discuss foreign policy or national security, but until you recognize that these issues are just as important as states right and the US economy to us FReepers, you may as well talk to the mirror.
We don’t live in a vacuum, and the US has enemies. Liberty must protect itself from those who seek to destroy us. The economy, the Free Market, and states rights won’t matter once our national security has been completely compromised.
Dr. Paul is for sealing up our borders meaning NO illegals and NO terrorists sneaking in.
Dr. Paul is right on a number of economic issues, but its not one or the other. Its not the economy or security.
Yes and I just said it: the best way to secure America is by doing exactly what Dr. Paul proposed.
Dr. Paul may seem anti-Israel but think about this: he's also for ending all aid to the Arabs as well. Meaning NO more aid to Saudis who are the biggest funders of terrorism and NO money to the corrupt so-called "Palestinian" authority. I also think Israel would do a lot more for its security and would finalize its defensive borders if it didn't have America always hanging over its shoulder.
The economy, the Free Market, and states rights wont matter once our national security has been completely compromised.
The Free Market DOES matter more then anything. If we are secure from terrorists then great but would THAT matter if we are slaves to the gov. and live under an economy like the USSR? Show me another candidate whos for ending the FED and reviving gold.
Are you suggesting we cut ties with our allies? When our Founding Fathers said that we are not to have entangling relations with foreign countries, they did not mean for us end all foreign trade or relations.
Dr. Paul is not a supporter of Israel. I, for one, believe that the US must maintain a alliance with Israel as well as the UK.
As you will recall, our Founding Fathers traveled extensively throughout parts of Europe on political missions. As a matter of fact, without our alliance with France we wouldn’t be here today.
“The Free Market DOES matter more then anything.”
As I stated previously, it all matters. You can’t have a Free Market without a national army to protect its borders and interests. You can’t have a Free Market without allies. It’s all part of the whole, which is precisely why our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
No taxes? Article I section 8 of the Constitution specifically addresses the issue of taxes as well as the import and export market, among other things.
This is precisely why Ron Paul supporters receive very little attention or regard on this foreign. Your narrow view and understanding of the Constitution, as a whole, and the importance of foreign policy are the reasons why FReepers don’t take you seriously.
I respect your position. It is with our countries highest interests in mind, but to focus on the Free Market as the MOST important issue is a failure to fully understand why our Founding Fathers established a Constitutional government.
I will say this. Dr. Paul is an important politician, and I hope he remains in office, but I will never vote for him as a Presidential candidate. Due to his position on foreign policy and other important issues, I don’t believe he is qualified to be the POTUS.
Note: No need to respond to my post.
I’m right and I don’t need to debate it or discuss it.
I read this thread and I see that you are only getting part of the discussion which is basically your own posts.
Here’s the whole picture pure and simple — you can’t be a little pregnant — either you are pregnant or you’re not (ie you either have a good domestic policy AND foreign policy or you don’t).
Dr. Paul has some great ideas on domestic situations, but on foreign policy he is is weak to poor.
1/2 of a good thing does not make it a good thing. You need to support a candidate(s) who has a well rounded domestic policy AND foreign policy.
No one in Washington understands the Constitution like Dr. Paul.
You cant have a Free Market without a national army to protect its borders and interests.
Dr. Paul IS for securing the borders. He wants to seal them up for good and end birthright citizenship. Again ppl use the straw man or put words in his mouth he never said.
Ron Paul is good / conservative on border issues. The problem people have here with him is mostly related to the middle east.
“Dr. Paul IS for securing the borders. He wants to seal them up for good and end birthright citizenship. Again ppl use the straw man or put words in his mouth he never said.”
Who is using a Straw Man fallacy here? I never said Dr. Paul was against securing our borders. I’m talking about national security concerning the Constitution as well as the Free Market. I also qualified my position and stated that I support some of Dr. Paul’s policies.
George Washington addressed the issue of our entangling alliances. There’s quite a difference. Furthermore, I never said that Dr. Paul’s policy is to cut all alliances. You’re the one jumping to conclusions. You accused some Freepers on this thread of failing to read your post, and yet you don’t have the courtesy to thoroughly read some of the comments.
A number of our close friends are Ron Paul supporters. We share a number of arguments/discussion on the subject. I have visited Dr. Paul’s site, and I have read some of his articles and statements. Dr. Paul’s policy concerning Israel is quite clear to me. If you believe that he supports Israel, you’re entitled to do so. His words speak louder than yours.
“No one in Washington understands the Constitution like Dr. Paul”
We’re not talking about “No one in Washington”. We’re talking about Ron Paul.
“Just imagine if we ended aid to the corrupt leadership in Mexico maybe then we’d have less illegals. “
If you believe it’s that simple you’re mistaken. It isn’t just an issue of “aid”. Illegals sent BILLIONS of American dollars each MONTH to our neighbors south of the border. It’s not just a matter of “aid”. It’s a matter of foreign and domestic policy that goes beyond funding.
Here’s my take on father and son. They need to hire the BEST Public Relations firm they have the money for. Get their image and message wrapped in a different package and the American public will cheer and jump on the band wagon.
They have been too demonized at this point. Need PR work badly.
Anyone who says “eveyone should...” is a cultist. I reject your mindless cult.
That comment isn’t about Paul, so don’t bother defending him. It’s about your mindset. Don’t bother defending it, either. I’ve relegated that mindset to the ashheap of history.
This isn’t about me. This is about America and what it’s leading to. How much of the communist manifesto has been implimented already by the gov.? We are on a road to socialism and Constitutionalists are the only ones who can turn America around.
If Dr. Paul was against cancer would you be for cancer then b/c of his foreign policy? You cant dismiss someone outright b/c you don’t like one of their positions. I supported Bush even tho Bush was against ending the FED. Why not show SOME support to the Constitutionalist movement?
You made it about yourself when you posted a vanity and displayed cultist behavior. I rejected it.
I rejected Ron Paul when he shot himself in the foot on national TV.
And get this straight. Even where he is right (blind pig, stopped clock, etc.), he is never and has never been the “only” or the “most” anything. So get rid of your superlative cult-like vocabulary.
1. Ron Paul is a kook.
2. Learn how to spell “people”.
Have a nice day.
Most people here do like limited, constitutional government.
Many here, even those who do like limited, constitutional government don’t like Ron Paul for his foreign policy stands.
I don’t know why you’re here making these arguments with these people. I’d like to see the Ron Paul side win these arguments. You aren’t winning these arguments.
At least you aren’t calling everyone who disagrees with you a neocon.
He really has been the “only” or the “most” this or that in the House of Reps. There have been a decent number of votes go 434-Paul.
In some respects there is semicultlike behavior, but it is true that RP does often stand alone, usually, if not always, on the side of limited government.
Ron Paul is an isolationist on foreign policy and defense.
I’m a peace through strength Reaganite.
Ron Paul is a libertarian.
I’m a conservative.
Ron Paul is pro-choice for states on abortion.
I believe children are persons from their creation and therefore protected by the explicit words of our Constitution.
So, we really don’t have much in common.
First off the TEA party was not a Ron Paul movement at all. In all of the TEA party events I have gone to traditional conservatives made up the majority and not Pualites or any other sort of nut-job libertarian.
Secondly one of the biggest problems with Ron Paul is his Code Pink type mentality. Though he speaks alot about restoring Constitutional government he also perverts Constitutional government just as often as he does with appeasement of terrorists and anti-National Security positions. Much of Paul’s support comes from anti-American types who like his stance on limiting our nation’s ability to defend itself.
And now besides continually giving moral support for terrorists and talking about limiting our National Security he also wants to violate the rights of everyone in the Armed Forces and force them to shower and bunk and be in tight quarters with people who openly profess to having a perversion for the same gender. This is a anti-liberty position by Paul, it is not a pro-liberty position.
Obviously you have some sort of Paul worship going on.
Ron Paul isn’t an isolationist, rather a non-interventionist.
Ron Paul is a libertarian conservative. Libertarians are typically not pro-life.
Ron Paul’s Abortion position is certainly not one of pro-Abortion.
Ron Paul believes that States may ban Abortion. That’s against Roe v Wade. Ron Paul is on the Pro-Life side of things, but some people think otherwise, typically because of slight differences in policy.
"...while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." - Ron Paul, January 31, 2006
And he's never backed off that unconstitutional States' rights trump the anti-unalienable right to life position one inch.
Putting aside the fact that Ron Paul's Stephen A. Douglas Democrat, Gerald R. Ford Republican position flies in the face of God's Law, the Natural Law, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the self-stated purpose of the Constitution of the United States in its Preamble, and the prohibition on killing innocent persons found in the Fifth Amendment, his position explicitly violates the clear provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.