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

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul Not a Myth
FXSTREET.COM ^ | April 20, 2007 | Axel Merk

Posted on 04/30/2007 9:14:44 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright

We published an analysis on “Dollar Myths” in which we criticized spending habits in Washington:

"Interestingly, nobody seemed to focus on the fact that there is an unconventional solution to foreigners holding too much of our debt: live within your means and do not issue debt. Such an old fashioned concept would indeed strengthen the dollar. Unfortunately, none of the presidential candidates at either side of the aisle seem to have heard of this notion."

We missed that there is indeed a presidential candidate who believes in the old fashioned view to “live within your means.” Our apologies go to Congressman Ron Paul, who threw his hat in the ring on March 12, 2007, announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. Ron Paul is the one member of Congress who is a true fiscal conservative. As a member of the House Committee of Financial Services, he does not hesitate to speak out against inflationary policies. On his campaign website, Ron Paul 2008, he writes:

“Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation… If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future – and yours.

(Excerpt) Read more at fxstreet.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bestgopcandidate; electionpresident; elections; headinsand; limitedgovernment; nochanceasprez; paul; ratindisguise; ronpaul; whoisronpaul; wimp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-242 next last

1 posted on 04/30/2007 9:14:48 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Ron Paul ping


2 posted on 04/30/2007 9:16:03 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation

Ron Paul certainly knows how to play with numbers.

3 posted on 04/30/2007 9:36:33 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright; cva66snipe
Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin.

Ron Paul is RIGHT on the money.

4 posted on 04/30/2007 9:44:15 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
Ron Paul is RIGHT on the money.

Except that his math is wrong, and that he ignores historical reality: spending usually increases drastically in wartime.

Compared to spending increases in past overseas deployments (where public debt typically increased from 50-100%), spending increases have been minimal.

Ron Paul's equation is simple: If we stab our troops in the back by cutting off their funding, then the taxpayer will save a bunch.

Those savings will then presumably come in handy for paying the jizya.

5 posted on 04/30/2007 9:50:23 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

Ron Paul, hmmmmmmmm.............no. I will give him my vote when I do Hillary, Hagel and the other morons that think they are fit to lead this country to defeat. We are in a war in need a warrior, not an accountant whose math is fuzzy.


6 posted on 04/30/2007 9:54:28 AM PDT by jrooney (The democrats are the friend of our enemy and the enemy of our friends. Attack them, not GW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Ron Paul's equation is simple: If we stab our troops in the back by cutting off their funding, then the taxpayer will save a bunch.

Paul never proposed stabbing troops in the back. He has great ideas to reduce the tax burden beginning with a simple concept: the United States Constitution.

7 posted on 04/30/2007 10:11:28 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Come on. The war spending is not the issue. Look at a budget pie chart. The entitelments are what are killing us! Here is a nice chart of defense spending from the Heritage Foundation:

We are spending under norms, despite the war.

Also, the idea that if we don't do whatever we will be wearing burkhas is very tired. The muzzies are not a conventional military threat, and they will never have a serious impact on American culture. They are like a big crop of lake flies, intensely irritating, but not a threat to our continued existence.

The attempt to pump them up to Nazi level existential threat are also getting very old, and discredit us.

8 posted on 04/30/2007 10:12:59 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

9 posted on 04/30/2007 10:14:11 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jrooney
While it is ironic that Ron Paul presents himself as a second-to-none fiscal conservative even as his own statements betray how unfamiliar he is with how the actual numbers work - there's another interesting aspect to him.

He is not an accountant by training and work experience, but a medical doctor.

He is 100% gung-ho for cutting spending by defunding our fighting forces.

Yet, his website does not even mention Medicare or Medicaid - programs that helped pay his bills, programs with which he is intimately familiar on a professional basis, programs which vacuum up tons of taxpayers money, programs which are sources of almost-unbelievable waste and corruption.

These two government programs do not even exist if we rely on his website as a resource documenting government spending.

10 posted on 04/30/2007 10:14:14 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Ron Paul's equation is simple: If we stab our troops in the back by cutting off their funding, then the taxpayer will save a bunch.

Please don't slander him. He wants a official declaration of War by congress as required by the Constitution.

And he is not privy to the Geopolitical situation until he gets elected as potus.

11 posted on 04/30/2007 10:17:18 AM PDT by JoinJuniorAchievement (“Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

Ron Paul...defeat, defeat, defeat


12 posted on 04/30/2007 10:20:48 AM PDT by demsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demsux

Political dialogue is so debased that an originalist like Mr. Paul is routinely slandered on a “conservative” discussion site. The Republic is lost.


13 posted on 04/30/2007 10:22:32 AM PDT by piceapungens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: piceapungens
Political dialogue is so debased that an originalist like Mr. Paul is routinely slandered on a “conservative” discussion site. The Republic is lost.

I think the site is still conservative in many ways, despite the way the liberals attack conservatives here.

14 posted on 04/30/2007 10:24:04 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: piceapungens

It ain’t slander if it’s true.


15 posted on 04/30/2007 10:30:57 AM PDT by demsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
Paul never proposed stabbing troops in the back.

You should probably learn about how your favorite candidate actually votes in Congress before you make claims like this.

Ah, yes. Another self-styled "true constitutionalist/constitution restorationist."

The Constitution is working just fine, and doesn't really need Ron Paul's assistance.

16 posted on 04/30/2007 10:32:37 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
...spending usually increases drastically in wartime...

Oh. Well then, that doesn't count I guess...

17 posted on 04/30/2007 10:32:52 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The Constitution is working just fine...

Sure, if its function is to provide cover for oligarchs.

18 posted on 04/30/2007 10:33:44 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Which GOP Candidate is your favorite?


19 posted on 04/30/2007 10:37:06 AM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Ron Paul Not a Myth

Of course not. He's a mythter.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

20 posted on 04/30/2007 10:38:20 AM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Yet, his website does not even mention Medicare or Medicaid - programs that helped pay his bills, programs with which he is intimately familiar on a professional basis, programs which vacuum up tons of taxpayers money, programs which are sources of almost-unbelievable waste and corruption.

Military (defense isn't the right term) spending has increased as the above graph shows.

Also, since you are "intimately familiar" with Medicare/Medicaid why don't you (the expert that you are) mention that Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who actually voted against Bush's massive increase of these programs via the prescription drugs boondogle? As someone who is "intimately familiar" with these programs, of course, you know that it was the greatest expansion of the welfare state (in terms of "numbers" since LBJ.

Talk is cheap but Ron Paul, unlike the other candidates, actually takes action with regard to actually cutting Medicaid/Medicare.

21 posted on 04/30/2007 10:38:54 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: piceapungens
Political dialogue is so debased that an originalist like Mr. Paul is routinely slandered on a “conservative” discussion site. The Republic is lost.

Your post contains a bunch of delightful cliches.

Let's unpack them.

an originalist like Mr. Paul

Many people claim to be originalists. Ron Paul's claim to be the one true originalist has to be judged on the merits of his positions and arguments.

He is not being criticized for being an originalist, but for being wrong on key issues.

Who has slandered him?

Has he been accused of extramarital affairs, or accepting bribes or other false claims?

Or has he been criticized for putting his fiscal priorities before the national defense?

Can all criticisms of Ron Paul be dismissed as slander?

Is it impossible for someone to legitimately criticize him, or is he supernaturally beyond all human reproach?

on a “conservative” discussion site

Ah, yes - "conservative" in scare quotes. In other words, anyone who disagrees with Ron paul can never be authentically conservative, because Ron Paul's view of the world is conservatism itself and anyone who disagrees with him is a heretic.

Nevermind the fact that Ron Paul himself is actually a self-identified libertarian.

The Republic is lost.

This is hilarious.

Translation: "If anyone dares to criticize my personal hero, Ron Paul, America as we know it has ceased to exist."

This is not only puerile, but defeatist. Hey, just like Ron Paul!

22 posted on 04/30/2007 10:40:48 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Nevermind the fact that Ron Paul himself is actually a self-identified libertarian.

Ron Paul is also a self-identified conservative, and he has demonstrated this in Congress (yes, I have studied his record).

23 posted on 04/30/2007 10:46:55 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Nice fisk above.

I have a lot of libertarian leanings, but Ron Paul’s brainpower is a myth.


24 posted on 04/30/2007 10:47:39 AM PDT by SaxxonWoods ("We're the government, and we're here to hurt.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Military (defense isn't the right term) spending has increased as the above graph shows.

Just as I said it did.

You imply that I stated that defense spending declined or was unchanged - I said nothing of the kind.

Also, since you are "intimately familiar" with Medicare/Medicaid

I am not, nor did I ever claim to be.

Your entire mode of argument, rather than dealing with facts, seems to be predicated on putting words in people's mouths so you can whack at straw men.

Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who actually voted against Bush's massive increase of these programs via the prescription drugs boondogle?

In other words, Ron Paul believes that the best policy is to give the Democrats as many excuses as they need to enact fully socialized medicine. Bravo.

As someone who is "intimately familiar" with these programs, of course, you know that it was the greatest expansion of the welfare state (in terms of "numbers" since LBJ.

If you fiddle with statistics you can produce any numbers you want and make any claim you want.

Apparently you missed the entire Nixon presidency.

Talk is cheap but Ron Paul, unlike the other candidates, actually takes action with regard to actually cutting Medicaid/Medicare.

Is that the actual action he actuates?

In point of fact, Ron Paul has never undertaken any legislative initiatives to significantly reduce funding for Medicaid or Medicare.

25 posted on 04/30/2007 10:51:56 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
Ron Paul is also a self-identified conservative

Given his district, he has to be.

He ran and will run again for president on the Libertarian Party ticket - but he never campaigns in his home district on his support of legalizing drugs.

My, how judicious of this rock-ribbed conservative!

Your comments above prove that you haven't.

26 posted on 04/30/2007 10:55:19 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Well said, Wideawake. The relevant stat here should not be absolute debt-—that’s meaningless without a context-— but debt-to-GDP. The former stat is the favorite of “Fiscal hawks” like the late Paul Tsongas who want to balance the budget by raising taxes. While Ron Paul never votes to do that, his sky-is-falling rhetoric has long been an aid to such crippling schemes.

Ron Paul is a typical isolationist socially radical libertarian whose ACU rating is only 83-— roughly Mike DeWine or John McCain territory. He’s a great libertarian but a piss-poor conservative.

27 posted on 04/30/2007 10:57:29 AM PDT by mjolnir ("All great change in America begins at the dinner table.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
Oh. Well then, that doesn't count I guess...

Silly me.

You are absolutely right.

We shouldn't have spent a dime to defeat the Imperial Japanese Navy - that wasn't a necessary expenditure, just sheer waste of taxpayer money.

28 posted on 04/30/2007 10:57:51 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Ron Paul [R] was one of three who voted against the Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act. The other two were Barney Frank [D] and David Wu [D].
29 posted on 04/30/2007 10:59:17 AM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp (We're living in the Dark Ages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Also, the idea that if we don't do whatever we will be wearing burkhas is very tired.

Yes.

It's stupid to think about global geopolitics and demographic reality.

If we don't think about militant Islam, it will go away.

30 posted on 04/30/2007 11:00:27 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
Sure, if its function is to provide cover for oligarchs.

What a brilliantly Marxist statement.

I didn't know the Constitution was drafted primarily as a proletarian counterbalance to wealthy private citizens.

Do go on.

31 posted on 04/30/2007 11:02:14 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf
Which GOP Candidate is your favorite?

At this point, I do not have one.

An ideal candidate would be a electable man of character who is strong on terror and on life issues.

These qualifications eliminate the entire field.

I confess that I would be interested in learning more about Fred Thompson, but I haven't done the legwork yet - and even when I do, it's hard to have more to go on than his personal assurances.

As of now, I'm backing no one.

32 posted on 04/30/2007 11:06:37 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
My apologies for misreading your claim about military spending. I also admit that your right that it was Nixon who fully funded Johnson's destructive Great Society (though unlike Dubya or Johnson he did not do it via establishmenb of new programs). I wonder, however, if you think that Nixon's sins somehow justify or mitigate Dubya actions. Do you?

I also don't get what you mean by the following: In other words, Ron Paul believes that the best policy is to give the Democrats as many excuses as they need to enact fully socialized medicine. Bravo.

By this, do you imply that Dubya's massive expansion of Medicare/Medicaid via the prescription drugs program is a good thin? I just want to make this clear.

33 posted on 04/30/2007 11:12:02 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

that’s “good thing.”


34 posted on 04/30/2007 11:12:50 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I haven’t the time for you today. Some other time, perhaps...but soon.


35 posted on 04/30/2007 11:14:22 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
By this, do you imply that Dubya's massive expansion of Medicare/Medicaid via the prescription drugs program is a good thin?

No, it is a bad thing.

The real question is: was it necessary to avoid something even worse?

That's a question honest people can debate.

Or one can simply ignore the debate and carp, like Ron Paul.

36 posted on 04/30/2007 11:15:29 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
I haven’t the time for you today.

Of course not.

I'm sure you and your Black Bloc friends have to take some direct action against the oligarchs today.

Some other time, perhaps...but soon.

Yes, as a running dog lackey of the capitalist exploiters of the worker, I am always being reminded that my time is coming soon.

37 posted on 04/30/2007 11:18:00 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JoinJuniorAchievement
Please don't slander him.

Apparently if you are a Ron Paul supporter you believe the word "slander" means: "pointing to Ron Paul's record."

He wants a official declaration of War by congress as required by the Constitution.

There is no such Constitutional requirement. Congress is indeed specifically empowered by the Constitution to declare war, but the Constitution does not restrain Congress from authorizing the Executive to pursue warfare at discretion.

And he is not privy to the Geopolitical situation until he gets elected as potus.

What does that even mean? As a member of Congress he is privy to almost all, and is expected to vote on many, geopolitical situations.

He has made his stand clear - he thinks that his own idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution has more value than the lives of America's fighting men and women.

You're trying to provide him the flimsiest of excuses for his behavior, but he remains beneath contempt.

38 posted on 04/30/2007 11:24:34 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Fred is not gonna run.

So, you aren't backing anyone. Why waste your time bashing Dr. Paul? Personally I think Dr. Paul is a man of character, he could be strong on Terror, although it would be in a different manner than what we see today, as would many of his plans and opinions. He is pro-life, Pro-Gun and strong on immigration issues. More so then any of the others in the field currently and isn't afraid to say it. Now is he electable? That's up to the voters.

39 posted on 04/30/2007 11:31:07 AM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

Many Republicans would rather we bankrupt ourselves first rather than find alternatives to a strictly military response to the WOT. Let’s see if they’re singing the same tune 5 years from not when the dollar collapses and their spending power and net worth is reduced by half as we are forced to devalue the dollar to be able to service our debt. It was LBJ’s ‘great society’ programs and the Vietnam war costs that led to Nixon going off the gold standard and inflation to spiral thru the roof during the Ford and Carter administrations. We can expect a repeat of those times coming up soon.


40 posted on 04/30/2007 11:35:09 AM PDT by yuta250
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf
Fred is not gonna run.

So you say. I don't know if he is or not.

So, you aren't backing anyone. Why waste your time bashing Dr. Paul?

Ron Paul is a symbol of pseudoconservative defeatism. While he is a joke as an individual politician, his counterproductive policy positions are more important than he is and more destructive.

Personally I think Dr. Paul is a man of character, he could be strong on Terror, although it would be in a different manner than what we see today, as would many of his plans and opinions.

He is manifestly not a man of character, as his wholesale abandonment of term limits indicates.

But that's less important than the fact that he does not take terrorism seriously at all. He is honestly more concerned about defense spending than he is about the welfare and morale of our fighting forces.

In this he is despicable and unforgivable.

And he inspires an insufferable cabal of "more conservative than thou" conservatives who believe that their personal, idiosyncratic view of the Constitution as an abstract ideal (as opposed to the real Constitution) trumps reality - they would rather allow terrorists to shape the battlefield than compromise their carefully-constructed dreamworld of perfect Constitutionalism.

Yet these are the same people who love Lysander Spooner.

He is pro-life, Pro-Gun and strong on immigration issues. More so then any of the others in the field currently and isn't afraid to say it.

Great. Not enough.

The voters have already spoken on a Ron Paul presidential candidacy.

If he can improve his showing this time by more than 25,000% he may have a shot.

But not on the GOP ticket.

41 posted on 04/30/2007 11:46:20 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: yuta250
Many Republicans would rather we bankrupt ourselves first rather than find alternatives to a strictly military response to the WOT.

So you believe that John Kerry had the whole thing figured out, oui?

I like the "bankrupt" hysterics - it has already been pointed out that our military expenditure as a percentage of our GDP is historically low, even for peactime comparisons.

Let’s see if they’re singing the same tune 5 years from not when the dollar collapses and their spending power and net worth is reduced by half as we are forced to devalue the dollar to be able to service our debt.

Wild-eyed prophesying indeed. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is - I am massively long dollar-denominated assets and will be for the next 5 years.

Are you making a sizeable bet against the dollar? If so, how?

It was LBJ’s ‘great society’ programs and the Vietnam war costs that led to Nixon going off the gold standard and inflation to spiral thru the roof during the Ford and Carter administrations.

Even if this simplistic formulation were true (inflation quintupled three years before we went of the gold standard and halved the year after) - it has already been pointed out that defense spending as a percentage of GDP is declining - not increasing as it was in the Nixon era.

And we are not going off the gold standard anytime soon - we are already off of it.

So the two factors you are claiming don't exist in the current situation.

We can expect a repeat of those times coming up soon.

Your own arguments disprove your thesis, o Chicken Little.

42 posted on 04/30/2007 12:02:13 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Keep bashing Republicans. Is that your job?


43 posted on 04/30/2007 12:14:15 PM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Ron Paul is an isolationist libertarian.

The war in Iraq is not a battle he would fight. He would have us pull back to within our borders and fight the terrorists when they come to us, and possibly perform limited strikes against them if they were clearly an imminent threat.

As a libertarian, he's definitely fiscally conservative. He would simply gut the government. I support that to a great extent, but I cannot support his isolationism, and I think that he would be a horrible President for our country right now.

We cannot afford to retreat from the war on terror. Hiding at home will not make us safer.

44 posted on 04/30/2007 12:17:06 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf
Keep bashing Republicans. Is that your job?

Childish post.

The job of Republican basher is already taken by fair-weather Republican Ron Paul.

Is someone truly a Republican when they have run on the Libertarian ticket more often for more offices than they have run on the GOP ticket?

45 posted on 04/30/2007 12:21:57 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
Ron Paul is an isolationist libertarian.

An accurate and precise characterization.

We cannot afford to retreat from the war on terror. Hiding at home will not make us safer.

I believe the exact same thing.

46 posted on 04/30/2007 12:23:31 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Childish? Every single thread that comes out about Ron Paul, you bash and hi-jack it. Nothing he can say or do is to your standards. We get it, you don’t like him.

What are you afraid of that you have made this your mission?


47 posted on 04/30/2007 12:31:08 PM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Ron Paul’s thesis is that if we quit meddling into the internal affairs of other nations, the terrorists would no longer have reason to attack us. Does that mean Ron Paul would ignore imminent attacks? No. Taking out al queda and the Taliban who provided them sanctuary is one thing; nation building and trying to install democracy in the mideast is entirely something else. As a conservative, I prefer the most minimalist foreign intervention required to protect out interests.


48 posted on 04/30/2007 12:36:13 PM PDT by yuta250
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
"Ron Paul Not a Myth"

No, just a joke.

49 posted on 04/30/2007 12:37:13 PM PDT by VaBthang4 ("He Who Watches Over Israel Will Neither Slumber Nor Sleep")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4
"Ron Paul Not a Myth" No, just a joke.

Ron Paul is not a myth but he appears to be a legend in his own mind (and the minds of his supporters).

50 posted on 04/30/2007 12:44:47 PM PDT by CommerceComet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-242 next last

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.

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