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?
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.
So, he dehumanized the child.
The Pauls on the other hand admit the personhood of the child but then say that the states can kill the child if they want to.
You tell me which is worse, the one who dehumanizes or the one who thinks that in America, Constitutionally, innocent persons can be killed in the name of states' rights.
What does this even mean? How do you “finish the job” in these nations? I’ve asked many people this and never gotten a straight answer. What if there’s never a stable democracy in either of these nations? How long should US Forces stay there? As time goes on, it appears that there isn’t any “finishing the job.”
In Iraq, the goal was to take out Hussein. That was accomplished.
In Afghanistan, the goal was to take out the Taliban and track down Al-Qaeda. For the most part, that has been accomplished.
The worst thing is that as a nation we are depending on an ally in Pakistan that has been actively sabotaging us at every turn and aiding insurgents in every single manner possible.
Iran and others will never allow for a stabilized democracy in Iraq and Pakistan will never stop meddling with affairs in Afghanistan and providing shelter for militants within their borders.
Unless you propose that the US start a war with the entire Middle East, the best we can do is finish training up their military and hope for at least a couple years of stability before stuff starts going crazy again.
Anti-Semitism.
Ron Paul only has one interest and that is Ron Paul. He is an ego out of control. I would not piss on him if he were on fire.
Excellent post and points, EternalVigilance.
The Liberty Movement is the same way. Even if you don't like Dr. Paul how do you feel about the Free State Project in New Hampshire? They don't have a position on foreign policy just the economy.
You are misrepresenting Dr. Paul’s words. He’s against continuing Afghanistan and Iraq b/c he feels the job is already done and military spending is costing America too much money meaning more taxes for citizens. I don’t agree w/ this view all together but he has a point.
When Islamist terrorists aboard the Turkish flotilla ship mercilessly attacked the Israeli commandos who were enforcing the legal maritime blockade on Gaza, Ron Paul called the Israelis “pirates.” How does that square with your claims?
I support Israel. I agree we need to get rid of terrorists. But I also think we need to move back to the Constitution and true capitalism. Maybe the best way to end terrorism is to spread laissez fair capitalism to the rest of the world. Once people discover islam can’t coexist w/ capitalism they will abandon it. Dr. Paul doesn’t understand the middle east as well as we’d like him to. Just like Bush and Reagan didn’t understand the evils of the FED and illegal fiat currency but I supported them too. I don’t have to agree with everything a politician says to support them.
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.