Rock star? No. Congressman/Doctor? Yes.
Posted on 09/03/2009 9:51:41 AM PDT by freepersunite
His detractors were more obnoxious, employing the Professorial “raised eyebrow” approach on issues for which they had no good answer to Paul arguments. I am refraining from being more specific, as in the present emergency—containing Obama—we need some of those 2008 detractors.
And why should a man who won his Republican seat, once again, in a crushing landslide, change parties?
It is true that the Democratic Party once had a very large Conservative wing, particularly in the South, but that is not the case--nor has it been for some while. The idea that the most Conservative man in the House of Representatives should join a party now run by Mrs. Pelosi and President Obama can only be described as silly.
Ron Paul is actually the most conservative member of congress in HISTORY.
Larry McDonald (a Democrat) was the 2nd!
Actually, Paul’s ACU rating is just to the left of McCain, while he talks Conservative, his voting record and pork record leave much to be desired.
the ACU is a load of horsesh*t. Ron votes against most bills because they’re unconstitutional even if the ACU labels them “conservative” hence the skewed rating. I believe there was better research done which showed he is the most conservative in the history of the congress
here we go, not quite the entire history..
Below is a listing from left to right of all 3,320 individuals who served in either or both the House and the Senate from 1937 to 2002.
http://voteview.com/Is_John_Kerry_A_Liberal.htm
look at the bottom 2:
3319 GEORGIA D MCDONALD, LARRY 0.851
3320 TEXAS R PAUL, RON 0.882
I was right.
SINCE 1937 these are the most conservative members of congress.
Yes, clearly he should be a democrat. Clearly all democrats are just like Ron Paul.
Different Conservatives have different priorities. It is not possible to accurately put a numerical value on the relative importance of different issues, or to balance those considerations with respect to temporary contingencies, compromise votes to obtain a corresponding compromise from a foe in an important direction, etc..
The records of some very solid Conservatives, in your long listing, are skewed by votes on issues which were not necessarily Conservative/Liberal, but more Republican/Democrat, which is never reliable, considering that both our Parties have always been coalitions of factions.
Let us just leave it that Dr. Paul is very fine, dedicated and princpled man, who was not fairly treated by the mass media in the past Presidential Primaries.
some day, many of those young people in the audience will become ... conservative Republicans! (To the dismay of Ron Paul.)
Ron Paul’s entire Campaign for Liberty is about two things: ensuring the youth of this generation don’t become card carrying commies and to force the Republican mainstream away from neoconservatism and back to the ideals of Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and the younger Ronald Reagan. I’d say he’s having success with the former, and the latter is becoming increasing irrelevant.
You might want to look at Ron Paul’s voting record.
He’s just another anti-semetic liberal who lies about what he does.
If you have some disagreement with Dr. Paul, on one or more issues, why don't you have the decency to discuss those issues, and not hide behind ex cathedra pronouncements aspersing his beliefs & character. Are you trying to sound like a shill for the Republican Left?
“As for your absurd comment, that Ron Paul is an “anti-semetic liberal,” you must be deranged to believe that.”
Hardly. Ron Paul is only a federalist of convenience, typically at the expense of Israel.
He’s a favorite of NeoNazi group Stormfront and has been photographed enjoying the company of the Stormfront founders.
He shares the Stormfronter’s disdain of the Federal Reserve based on Jewish-control conspiracy theories.
He used to authored the “Ron Paul Reports” that spewed anti-semetic garbage worthy of Hamas. Indeed, the newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I read, or with more vitriol.
A 1987 issue of Paul’s letter called Israel “an aggressive, nationalist state,” and a 1990 newsletter discussed the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.”
Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”
In one he was arguing that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul then wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.”
And on and on.
Yes, these are but examples of hundreds of such anti-semetic views.
As for Dr. Paul's criticisms of the Federal Reserve, none of these have been based on any "Jewish control" theory. They are based upon sound money concepts, which go back to the Austrian school of Economics, basically articulated by the great Ludwig von Mises (who, incidentally, happened to be Jewish).
Again, if you disagree with Dr. Paul's views on any subject, address the subject. Don't try to smear the man-or stir up ill will among Conservatives.
Those are but drops in the ocean.
There are thousands of more examples (like leading the effort to pressure Ronald Reagan to abandon Lebanon so as to screw Israel) . . . and yet favor ME involvment when it helps anti-Israel interests.
He’s a anti-semetic kook, who travels with anti-semetic kooks.
BRAVO. Excellent satire.
Why do you think of Ron Paul as being liberal and anti-semitic? That's like Jimmy Carter throwing out the "R" word when he lacks a coherent argument.
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.