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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-242 next last
To: wideawake
"To hear him talk, his fiscal conservatism only seems to come into play when it is a question of defense spending."

"He prattles on and on about rolling back every bureaucracy in the government at his leisure"

Which wideawake should we believe?

101 posted on 05/01/2007 8:20:48 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
Liberal use of military force _is_ liberal spending.

You would be wrong, even if it were true that military force had been used liberally - which it demonstrably has not.

It has been pointed out to you more than a dozen times on this thread that military spending is well beneath historical norms.

So your statement - intended to justify your deceptive bait-and-switch - is ridiculous on its face.

In fact, last cycle's ubiquitous argument was that the administration had skimped on the use of military force - that it did not deploy enough men, or enough materiel, or sufficiently expensive and fancy materiel to the job.

This cycle the spin is that we are spending too much, despite the hard facts of what has actually been spent in the historical context.

Treason apparently breeds madness. It definitely breeds inconsistency.

102 posted on 05/01/2007 8:22:17 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
The wideawake who acknowledges that Ron Paul pays lip service to generalized fiscal conservatism while noticing that Ron Paul only seems to get truly animated and actively involved in reducing spending when it comes to depriving America's fighting forces of resources they need.
103 posted on 05/01/2007 8:24:24 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

This must be the wideawake that does not listen to Ron Paul.


104 posted on 05/01/2007 8:27:56 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Lip service????? Give me a break. You talk about me misrepresenting! I can’t hold a candle to you., Ron Paul doesn’t just pay “lip service” to limited government across-the-board. He puts himself on the record, often at great political risk. Just because you disagree with Paul doesn’t mean you have to distort his record (90 percent for smaller government according to the National Taxpayers Union).


105 posted on 05/01/2007 8:33:25 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
This must be the wideawake that does not listen to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul spends the bulk of time in the media sabotaging defense spending.

The average American voter who has only a passing familiarity with Ron Paul, will know him only as the Republican who agrees with defunding the troops.

If one goes to Ron Paul's website one will find plenty of fiscally conservative stances.

However, what matters is what a candidate emphasizes, in the public eye, as his policy focus. That is what the undecided voters see, and what they will hold him to if elected.

And if you look at Ron Paul's media appearances, he goes on and on about defunding the troops.

John McCain may have an intricate and really well thought-out plan to encourage more private sector investment in biotech research, for all I know.

But if I am an average voter watching him on TV, that will not be something I will know much about - because that is not what he is campaigning on.

106 posted on 05/01/2007 8:35:05 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: JoinJuniorAchievement

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

It’s presumptuous of Ron Paul to purport to know the Constitution better than John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Adams, Jefferson and Madison all used military force with Congressional authorization.


107 posted on 05/01/2007 8:37:43 AM PDT by Revenge of Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
It was a strategic move, not an ideological embrace of socialism.

If you want to fool yourself into believing that fairy tale, you are entitled. The sad truth is that despite Bush's "strategic" move (actually it was a lame attempt at Clintonesque triangulation) we are closer to full scale socilized medicine than ever before. The "left" has found plenty of new arguments and it is on a roll. Thus, even in pratical term this strategic ploy proved all too clever and those who supported it now have egg on their "pragmatic" faces.

108 posted on 05/01/2007 8:38:23 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

> Remove the Taliban. Go home and leave a vacuum of power in Afghanistan. Wait for the next attack. No thanks.

Also, Ron Paul’s supporters hide behind the “Congress should declare war” mantra when they defend his votes on Iraq. They ignore the fact that Paul voted to authorize force in Afghanistan without a declaration of war.


109 posted on 05/01/2007 8:42:47 AM PDT by Revenge of Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
He puts himself on the record, often at great political risk.

The whole point of Ron Paul is that he takes no political risk.

He votes against almost everything, so both Democrats and Republicans woo him when they need an extra vote on a close issue.

When he feels the political temperature of the country going Democrat on the war, all of a sudden he is increasingly vocal on the Democrat side of the issue. The GOP expects zero loyalty from him anyway, so it's win/win for Ron.

You're an authority on Ron Paul - what specific legislation has he recently drafted to concretely combat government spending outside of defense spending?

Just one bill - not asking for multiple examples.

110 posted on 05/01/2007 8:43:23 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Revenge of Sith
They ignore the fact that Paul voted to authorize force in Afghanistan without a declaration of war.

That's an excellent point.

Thanks for bringing that up.

111 posted on 05/01/2007 8:44:10 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Yet you and Paul apparently can't read it with comprehension. And yes, I know - you will respond that you have a degree in Constitutional Law now

Nope, just one in history. That gives me the knowledge why this will be a failure.

I am reminded for some reason of that scene from Animal House. Yes, that's much more your speed.

Not really. But when talking to the 'faithful' one has to go with simple and sometimes funny examples that possibly could make you see a simple comparison and keep your attention. Your attention span is limited to the amount of time between official edicts from the White House. No thinking on your own, just espousal of Republican talking points. And as I figured that movie was after 1950 (the limits of 'conservative' memories as shown time and again), I assumed you would know of the movie.

I had forgotten - the truly important thing is that money is being spent. We need to save that money for the jizya we'll have to pay after our foreordained defeat. As usual, you really have your priorities straight.

And as usual you don't. I could care less for 'freedom' in another country if we're paying for that freedom as our Constitution does not cover that nation, nor was it intended to be used to spread 'freedom' to that nation.

To hear him talk, his fiscal conservatism only seems to come into play when it is a question of defense spending.

Lesson over. I can't carry on a conversation with someone that doesn't know the facts. It is clear you don't even know Dr. Paul's stance as his fiscal conservatism is far reaching past just defense.

112 posted on 05/01/2007 9:04:37 AM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: my_pointy_head_is_sharp
"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]."

Bookmark 

113 posted on 05/01/2007 9:14:48 AM PDT by scratcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
In other words, you are arguing that there would be no reason to be concerned about a second Clinton presidency if she didn't have access to these mythical new powers of the Executive you claim Bush has obtained.

No now pay attention this time. What I am saying is this. Thanks to the GOP Hillary as POTUS is now a far more serious matter than it was in 2000. The GOP was power drunk and gave their beloved W anything and everything he asked for all in the name of the W.O.T. Of course there was also the cheer-leading voters who thought it was all a good idea because THEIR party was in power the short sighted sheep they are. Hillary would now have The Patriot Act and DHS as well. The GOP has tried to make Bush a king in the same manner the DEMs tried to do with FDR.

114 posted on 05/01/2007 9:58:50 AM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
Hillary and other socialists would be impeached already.

As should have been done.

115 posted on 05/01/2007 10:06:50 AM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
You distortions are quite impure and simply wrong. Paul did not say that the troops' work is not worth sustaining. You are attempting to attribute something to Paul that he never said.

Exactly, and if Ron Paul had been POTUS he had no issues with cheaper and effective means of dealing with such issues.

Now IF Bush had done with this war what is supposed to happen in war our troops would have been home two years ago and Iraq would be in ruins. But Bush is a hypocrite and turned the war from day one into a nation building project instead of a traditional war where the enemy is taken out ASAP at all cost. IF Ron Paul had to take us to war I highly doubt we would have been seeing our troops being abused in such a manner. He would have ordered a quick and precise mission with the elimination of the enemy as the primary military objective and no nation building.

116 posted on 05/01/2007 10:13:13 AM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
The Left can argue all it wants, but it still needs to recruit voters.

The Left argues in general that "There are 40 million uninsured! People are dying!" etc., etc.

But the uninsured, as we know do not vote as a bloc.

The elderly do vote much more like a bloc.

And the best, really the only, argument the Left had for them to support fully socialized healthcare was prescription cost.

The Left was depending on them to drive socialized medicine to completion - and now they aren't as exercised about it as they were.

117 posted on 05/01/2007 10:24:11 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Well....they’ve already recruited Romney who, of course, has pushed even faster for socialization than Bush.


118 posted on 05/01/2007 10:35:35 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: billbears
That gives me the knowledge why this will be a failure.

Of course. Any responsible historian will gladly brag that he has the ability to unerringly predict the future.

Your attention span is limited to the amount of time between official edicts from the White House.

Have you ever actually posted an argument of substance? Or is it to be all petty sniping like this?

I would expect that a learned historian and a prophet of your stature would bring more to the table.

I could care less for 'freedom' in another country if we're paying for that freedom as our Constitution does not cover that nation

Interesting terminology. It implies that in your view, the Constitution is basically a low-premium insurance policy.

While I believe that the more free countries in the world there are, the more potential security assets the US has, my main concern isn't political freedom in Iraq but fighting terrorists abroad on a ground of our choosing.

It is clear you don't even know Dr. Paul's stance as his fiscal conservatism is far reaching past just defense.

Oh, I acknowledge that he talks the talk when TV cameras aren't on him - when the light is blinking he does seem to forget all that in favor of whining about Iraq, though.

But I ask again: can any Paul booster show me serious concrete legislative efforts he's undertaken to systematically reduce non-defense spending?

119 posted on 05/01/2007 10:43:50 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Well....they’ve already recruited Romney who, of course, has pushed even faster for socialization than Bush.

You assume that Bush and Romney have the same goals.

Again, for the President, the prescription drug benefit was a strategic blocking move to avoid a more comprehensive Democratic program.

Romney is not a chief executive making hard choices - he is shilling desperately for votes and will apparently promise anything to anyone.

As his abortion record demonstrates.

120 posted on 05/01/2007 10:48:07 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; Austin Willard Wright
The average American voter who has only a passing familiarity with Ron Paul, will know him only as the Republican who agrees with defunding the troops.

The voters that introduced me to Ron Paul identified him as someone who wanted to stop funding the United Nations with our tax dollars and introduced legislation accordingly. Then I learned that he introduced legislation to fund the federal income tax. Then I learned that he introduced legislation to recognize the personhood of the unborn (H.R. 776). I later learned of his consistent stand against liberal spending in military interventions in Kosovo and Iraq.

Ron Paul is consistent fiscal conservative, and I commend him for it.

121 posted on 05/01/2007 10:50:25 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
The GOP was power drunk and gave their beloved W anything and everything he asked for all in the name of the W.O.T.

I see.

So you do object to Hillary in principle, but you are still buying into the Left myth that the powers of the Executive have been mystically enhanced by the Patriot Act.

The GOP has tried to make Bush a king

Arguments are not bolstered by paranoia and hysterics.

122 posted on 05/01/2007 10:50:48 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

Rupaul is a myth?


123 posted on 05/01/2007 10:54:34 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
The voters that introduced me to Ron Paul identified him as someone who wanted to stop funding the United Nations with our tax dollars

And who were these voters, exactly?

Then I learned that he introduced legislation to fund the federal income tax.

Finally, brass tacks.

Which legislation was that now? Can you give details?

I later learned of his consistent stand against liberal spending in military interventions in Kosovo and Iraq

Still addicted to buzzwords, eh?

I repeat for the nth time: our military spending in Iraq is demonstrably frugal by any historical standard.

Since you enjoy throwing around meaningless weasel words, would it be fair to say that the Communist Party USA's policy view on funding the Iraq War is conservative? After all, it is identical to Ron Paul's.

Or conversely, would I be justified in characterizing Ron Paul's policy view on funding the Iraq War as communist?

124 posted on 05/01/2007 10:57:35 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
So you do object to Hillary in principle, but you are still buying into the Left myth that the powers of the Executive have been mystically enhanced by the Patriot Act.

The powers of the Executive Branch especially in departments overseen by it are way out of line with the Constitution. Unfortunately the GOP is just as much to blame as the DEMs for this. For example I would expect the GOP to place more restrictions on such agencies yet many are allowed to create laws in effect by-passing congress.

I am against Clinton yes anyone who knows my posting knows I'm not a DEM. Nor does the GOP own my vote just because it's not the Democratic party.

The GOP better wake up about Hillary especially if they think a liberal Republican will defeat her. She will do to him what hubby did to Liberal Dole in 1996 which is run to the right of him. IOW the GOP's top three being Rudy, McCain, and Romney, will not win over Hillary. I don't like her a bit but I understand that she can talk as Conservatives as any of those three Liberals. If the GOP runs Moderate/Liberal it will loose the White house.

125 posted on 05/01/2007 11:57:25 AM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Since you enjoy throwing around meaningless weasel words, would it be fair to say that the Communist Party USA's policy view on funding the Iraq War is conservative? After all, it is identical to Ron Paul's.

Or conversely, would I be justified in characterizing Ron Paul's policy view on funding the Iraq War as communist?

Ah.....red-baiting now, are we? Two can play at this game. The Communist Party in Iraq is very supportive of your position on Iraq: e.g. keeping U.S. troops there, apparently forever....er....um until "victory."

126 posted on 05/01/2007 12:20:35 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright; The_Eaglet
No, I am pointing out the ridiculousness of The_Eaglet's "liberal" tagging of Administration supporters.

Thank you for proving my point.

127 posted on 05/01/2007 12:22:58 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Psittacism.

Never substantiated, but repeated ad nauseam.

128 posted on 05/01/2007 12:24:57 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

You quite a windbag yourself but hey don’t take it personal political sleep walker.


129 posted on 05/01/2007 12:29:36 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
You quite a windbag yourself but hey don’t take it personal political sleep walker.

You have claimed several times now that the Executive has been given unconstitutional powers during this administration.

I have given you every opportunity to substantiate those claims with hard data.

Rather than back up your empty claims, you rely on invective.

It's the least dignified way of admitting that you have nothing to add to the conversation and that your claims are false.

130 posted on 05/01/2007 12:33:58 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

You tell me then who was it for example that was using the 9/11 attacks as a reason for trying to push Fast Track Trade authority?


131 posted on 05/01/2007 12:59:14 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
You tell me then who was it for example that was using the 9/11 attacks as a reason for trying to push Fast Track Trade authority?

Are claims usually substantiated in the form of a question?

The answer to your question is: no one was.

But feel free to actually specify an unconstitutional power the Executive currently enjoys.

Just one.

In the form of a declarative statement, if at all possible.

132 posted on 05/01/2007 1:01:28 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

Paul looked like Don Knotts, reincarnated, on MSNBC this AM.


133 posted on 05/01/2007 1:06:29 PM PDT by KenmcG414
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Here’s more. What about the data bases Bush and his appointee’s are trying to establish on law abiding citizens. Everything from your medical records to your web surfing habits and who knows what else. You would be squealing like a pig had a DEM tried this but it’s just dandy if the RINO’s do it then huh? Look beyond the beloved GOP for once and think about PRECIDENTS instead and apply them to what the DEMs can do afterward.
134 posted on 05/01/2007 1:06:49 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Look beyond the beloved GOP for once...

Don't ask him to do that. He won't, anyway.

135 posted on 05/01/2007 1:07:56 PM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Here’s more.

You didn't substantiate your last claim. Which makes sense, because it's false - but you didn't even try.

What about the data bases Bush and his appointee’s are trying to establish on law abiding citizens.

I forgot about that part of the Constitution that forbids databases. Could you remind me which article that's in? And which database are you talking about, exactly?

Everything from your medical records to your web surfing habits and who knows what else.

Oh, you mean that mythical database that exists only in your head.

Thanks.

I won't expect any substantiation on this assertion either.

You would be squealing like a pig had a DEM tried this but it’s just dandy if the RINO’s do it then huh?

Umm, dude, maybe you saw this in a movie or something? What are you talking about?

136 posted on 05/01/2007 1:12:57 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
Don't ask him to do that. He won't, anyway.

How was the Black Bloc rally?

Topple any oligarchs?

137 posted on 05/01/2007 1:15:18 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The answer to your question is: no one was

Don't play games with me. He said it. Bush did indeed use 9/11 {after the fact for FTTA promoting purposes} Proof right here.

138 posted on 05/01/2007 1:19:39 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

[crickets]


139 posted on 05/01/2007 1:23:44 PM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Want some more? How about his Faith Based Programs? Looks harmless doesn’t it? Well it isn’t. Churches today are being censored by the fed usually using the USPS to achieve the purpose by saying what can and can not be placed in church flyer's {bulletins mailed out under NPO status}. Now you let the church start taking federal dollars and see how quick for example churches are ordered to hire gay preachers. Congress has no Constitutional authority nor does POTUS to stick it’s nose in church missions. The FED already has about destroyed church ran orphanages and hospitals. I say give them back to the churches to run as they see fit and I bet you Ron Paul agree’s.
140 posted on 05/01/2007 1:27:20 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Don't play games with me.

LOL!

Says the man who cites the New York Times spin machine as his authority.

FTTA is not unconstitutional.

End of story.

The story so far: you have produced zero evidence of the Executive obtaining unconstitutional powers.

141 posted on 05/01/2007 1:38:58 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
I don't blame you for refusing to reveal details to a capitalist oppressor.
142 posted on 05/01/2007 1:40:10 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Want some more?

Unsubstantiated claims of unconstitutional powers? Not really.

How about his Faith Based Programs? Looks harmless doesn’t it? Well it isn’t. Churches today are being censored by the fed usually using the USPS to achieve the purpose by saying what can and can not be placed in church flyer's {bulletins mailed out under NPO status}.

Let's pretend that this claim you've just made is true and verified - which it isn't.

If you want federal grant money, then you have to abide by the terms of the federal grant program.

If you don't like the terms, you don't have to ask for money.

Nothing unconstitutional about that - unless the Executive is somehow constitutionally obligated to give people free money. Which article would that be in?

Now you let the church start taking federal dollars and see how quick for example churches are ordered to hire gay preachers. Congress has no Constitutional authority nor does POTUS to stick it’s nose in church missions. The FED already has about destroyed church ran orphanages and hospitals. I say give them back to the churches to run as they see fit and I bet you Ron Paul agree’s.

Again, churches that decide to feed at the public trough do so voluntarily.

The impositions against hospitals and orphanages do not come from the Executive, of course, but from local jurisdictions.

But feel free to just make anything up.

143 posted on 05/01/2007 1:44:52 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The impositions against hospitals and orphanages do not come from the Executive, of course, but from local jurisdictions.

Wrong! Any hospital who takes one cent in Medicaid {a State ran but federal funded program} or Medicare is indeed under FED impositions. Even private pay facilities are somewhat. So are orphanages who may happen to have kids under Medicaid due to death of parents. IOW they fall under Sec of Health and Human Services. Wanna play some more?

BTW I do think churches should not except one cent of Federal funding. It's a poor deal with the devil.

144 posted on 05/01/2007 1:57:47 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Wrong! Any hospital who takes one cent in Medicaid {a State ran but federal funded program} or Medicare is indeed under FED impositions.

Or in other words: they take federal money.

BTW I do think churches should not except one cent of Federal funding.

Then why are you complaining?

Nothing you've mentioned can be construed as unconstitutional in any way.

145 posted on 05/01/2007 2:00:12 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; The_Eaglet
Or in other words: they take federal money.

The hospitals do so to get patients care yes. But Medicare funding is but a small part of the FEDS regulating even in private pay facilities. The ORPHANS take the Medicaid funding as it is provided for their medical care as a survivor. One of the few actual legitimate uses for it. It was meant solely as a safety net for workers and their families who either become disabled or die.

Now you tell me why over half the GOP is pushing Universal Health Care then? GW Bush and the GOP Big Government shills in congress have passed programs Hillary could only dream of getting through. The so called Medicare reform which Frist pushed was patterned after the nightmare called Tenn Care in Frist home state which Hillary and Gore helped start. Among it's biggest shills also is Senator Lamar Alexander-R-TN.

146 posted on 05/01/2007 2:27:38 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Nothing you've mentioned can be construed as unconstitutional in any way.

Well you see there's the problem. The Constitution only specifies what powers government has and it's boundries. What it does not mention or specify as being the duty of the three branches is left up to the states.

147 posted on 05/01/2007 2:30:37 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
What it does not mention or specify as being the duty of the three branches is left up to the states.

Not mentioned is the offering of taxpayer money for powers reserved to the states and to the people. Therein lies the major error in the socialism of liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans.

148 posted on 05/01/2007 3:53:23 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
This is unconstitutional. Again Bush and company along with DEMs using the W.O.T. to attempt to expand Executive Powers. Alberto needs to resign but Bush isn't man enough to ask him to do so. GONZALES WANTS ARBITRARY POWER TO BLOCK GUN PURCHASES; SAF SAYS HE SHOULD RESIGN That little weasel is making a mockery out of his position and the Constitution which forbids him to do this act.

A Republican USAG supporting a direct violation of the Second Amendment. He needs to resign. This is but one of many of the Bush Administrations offenses against the Constitution. Too bad the GOP lacks the will to stop him.

149 posted on 05/01/2007 3:56:07 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
Not mentioned is the offering of taxpayer money for powers reserved to the states and to the people. Therein lies the major error in the socialism of liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans.

True indeedand there is no difference between the two except for a D or R after the name.

150 posted on 05/01/2007 3:58:02 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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