Ron Paul Not a Myth

FXSTREET.COM ^ | April 20, 2007 | Axel Merk

[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.

[The_Eaglet]

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.

[wideawake]

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.

[sam_paine]

Rupaul is a myth?

[wideawake]

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?

[cva66snipe]

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.

[Austin Willard Wright]

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."

[wideawake]

No, I am pointing out the ridiculousness of The_Eaglet's "liberal" tagging of Administration supporters.

Thank you for proving my point.

[wideawake]

Psittacism.

Never substantiated, but repeated ad nauseam.

[cva66snipe]

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

[wideawake]

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.

[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?

[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?

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.

[KenmcG414]

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

[cva66snipe]

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.

[Oberon]

Look beyond the beloved GOP for once...

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

[wideawake]

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?

[wideawake]

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

How was the Black Bloc rally?

Topple any oligarchs?

[cva66snipe]

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.

[Oberon]

[crickets]

[cva66snipe]

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.