Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate for Pro-Life social conservatives.

RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate for Tax-Cutting fiscal conservatives.

RON PAUL is the ONLY 100% Anti-Terrorist candidate.

RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate for National Defense and Foreign Affairs.

RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate for the Bill of Rights.

RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate on Illegal Immigration.

RON PAUL is the ONLY socially-conservative Candidate defending the independence of the Christian Church from Federal "Faith-Based Socialism".

RON PAUL. The RIGHT Candidate for a FREE Republic.


Please let me know if you would like to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List (GRPPL), already developing support on the Free Republic Religion Forum.
1 posted on 02/20/2007 8:59:50 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last
To: Gamecock; elkfersupper; dcwusmc; gnarledmaw; Extremely Extreme Extremist; KoRn; traviskicks; ...

Ron Paul for President! (Ping to current GRPPL members)


2 posted on 02/20/2007 9:00:38 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Ron Paul should be the rule, not the execption.


3 posted on 02/20/2007 9:01:36 AM PST by isthisnickcool (Have a nice day. Durka durka durka...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Note: The source in the "Pro-Life" section refers to Duncan Hunter's flawed "Right to Life Act", in contrast to Ron Paul's better-written "Sanctity of Life Act".


5 posted on 02/20/2007 9:02:38 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Ron Paul turned his back on the troops.


6 posted on 02/20/2007 9:03:22 AM PST by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (Elections have repercussions, you reap what you sow.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Ron Paul voted with the Democrats on the "non-binding resolution" on Iraq.

He is political "dead meat" as far as I'm concerned.

Were you aware of this and didn't give a hoot or are you just pushing damaged goods?

8 posted on 02/20/2007 9:03:42 AM PST by capt. norm (Liberalism = cowardice disguised as tolerance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
An incorruptible man of principle

Except, of course, when it means keeping his word on term limits.

Then he reveals himself to be as corruptible as any member of Congress.

10 posted on 02/20/2007 9:04:46 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Ron Paul is anything but a Republican.

If anything, he is a traditional Whig but he does not even meet those criteria.

He is a Libertarian by most modern standards, and a royal pain in the arse.

11 posted on 02/20/2007 9:04:54 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

I'd like to see Ron Paul as President, but I'd accept him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, too.


14 posted on 02/20/2007 9:06:36 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
And whether someone stabs our fighting men in the back out of principle or for money, I don't much care what motivated him to become evil.

Ron Paul is still a contemptible scumbag.

15 posted on 02/20/2007 9:06:46 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

I got to admit that I like him on most issues but then he went and stood with the Democrats on the "surrender" vote. He may have had his own reasons but he still let himself be counted for their argument. I can't forgive that.


20 posted on 02/20/2007 9:10:37 AM PST by Gator101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

"Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly.

Indeed.


24 posted on 02/20/2007 9:11:26 AM PST by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

No doubt Ron Paul is fantastic. What we love about him is what makes him so unelectable though. Imagining what a RP presidency would look like sure makes me smile.


26 posted on 02/20/2007 9:11:36 AM PST by Clump (Your family may not be safe, but at least their library records will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Historically, with one exception, American's don't elect congress critters to be president.

You may be wasting bandwidth - but he is a better choice than ole Rudy.

29 posted on 02/20/2007 9:13:07 AM PST by WorkerbeeCitizen (Religion of peace my arse - We need a maintenance Crusade - piss on Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Put me on the ping list. Paul is da man!


30 posted on 02/20/2007 9:13:10 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Intrigued...please add me to the GRPPL!
Thanks~

keeper


37 posted on 02/20/2007 9:15:57 AM PST by keeper53 ( "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." Jim Elliot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Ron Paul is truly a decent man. However, I strongly disagree with him on his Iraq vote. I realize that a candidate cannot give you everything that I want, but -to me- he just made a mistake on the most important issue of our time.


49 posted on 02/20/2007 9:19:24 AM PST by Bishop_Malachi (Liberal Socialism - A philosophy which advocates spreading a low standard of living equally.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Didn't Ron Paul just vote with the Democraticks on this stupid "Iraq Resolution"?


62 posted on 02/20/2007 9:22:16 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

We used to live in Ron Paul's district and we still own a ranch there. We moved about the time he first ran for congress. Ron Paul was, and still is a NUT!


64 posted on 02/20/2007 9:22:53 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Sorry but Ron Paul isn't my kind of guy. While he may have some good things about him, the fact that he's totally inflexible on so many things and prides himself in being the Lone Ranger on a lot of things (though by no means because he's the most conservative) has thoroughly disenchanted me with him.


65 posted on 02/20/2007 9:23:08 AM PST by Princip. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
IMO, he is right on everything except the war on Islamic fascism. I know he will not horse-trade on issues...his campaign does not stand much of a chance so long as he advocates cutting troop funding while armed forces personnel are in a theater of war. FWIW, I agreed with him right up until boots were on the ground in Iraq. Afghanistan, on the other hand, leaves a wide gulf between the two of us:

"Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets. The net result of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss capturing bin Laden, assist al-Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug production, lose hundreds of American lives, and allow spending billions of American taxpayer dollars with no end in sight."

Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re poorer but certainly not safer for it. We removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan – much to the delight of the Iranians, who consider the Taliban an archenemy. Warlords now control the country, operating a larger drug trade than ever before.
Similarly in Iraq, our ouster of Saddam Hussein will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.
Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies, and placed power in Iraq with Iran’s best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures?

.

Within US borders, Ron Paul is exactly what America needs. On the other hand, his foreign policy views, for all matters other than trade, are not my own. Not wanting to start wars is one thing. What to do once we are knee-deep is another.

70 posted on 02/20/2007 9:25:24 AM PST by M203M4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson