Posted on 01/10/2008 5:29:29 AM PST by connell
I left the Republican party more than a decade ago, and was spoken to with the exact same venom, vitriol, and hate used by the left.
(confirming there really is little difference)
The illegal immigration and Harriet Miers threads weren't even worth reading unless they reached 1000 posts. :) Everyone was so friendly on them.
The Iowa Caucuses live thread last week topped 2,000 posts.
“1. He claims he will do things like abolish the IRS, which the president has no authority to do. This is a constitutionalist?”
What branch of government does the IRS belong to?
“Its the cynical nature of his candidacy that should turn off anyone that claims to be a Libertarian. He’s using the GOP for money and exposure, because he knows being the LP candidate is futile.”
I thought he was using Soros for money and exposure?
Ow, my head hurts now.
Please. It works both ways. Many have dismissed Paul’s small government message because of the odious Storm Front support, Cindy Sheehan (who isn’t even backing him, but appeared at a rally), prior newletters, etc.
Well, that's partly fair. There are parts of modern libertarianism that are deeply appealing to conservatives (small government). I'm entirely sympathetic to his stand on enumerated powers.
But the libertarian movement has gone in a libertine direction of late that is not very appealing. There has always, and appropriately, been a strong cultural component to conservatism and the libertarians seek to completely define that out of the party.
Some other key differences: (1) Libertarians tend to support open borders (not all of them); (2) Many Libertarians like Ron Paul are deeply wrong and dangerously naive on foreign policy; and (3) The movement is split on abortion--but a very substantial portion of the movement is as radical as NARAL (except on government subsidies for abortion).
That said, Paul supporters speak at every Republican event I attend here. They are listened to politely. Many of my friends in the local party structure are Paul supporters.
I would like them to stay in the party--clearly, there's no place in the dems for anyone advocating small government in any form. But it would make things easier if they stopped attacking everyone who disagrees with them as totalitarians. Some are (HRC, Obama) and some are not (me). And it would help a lot if they would think thru the consequences of abandoning the 250 year old doctrine of forward defense and the open borders nonsense.
One other point, I'm still waiting to form a final opinion, but the stuff Paul let his name go on in his newsletter looks, on first reports, to be an appalling exercise in bad judgment. Paul supporters should not take other's concerns about that as an attack on his small government principles--it raises serious questions in my mind about his judgment (as does his position on Iraq). He's running for President. It's appropriate to ask questions about character and these are serious questions, entirely apart from ideology.
I got news for you: most of the people ranting and raving against Ron Paul don't support the message of limited government.
” I got news for you: most of the people ranting and raving against Ron Paul don’t support the message of limited government.”
Agree - except on one point.
It’s not news to me. :)
The keywords on that thread were a hoot!
“I will confess-—gladly-—to you and to anyone, that I am an electoral pragmatist. I am also a believer in the two-party system; I think it has done a lot of good for America, overall.”
Washington opposed political parties. His arguments on the subject are pretty compelling when you compare them to history.
I thought he was using Soros for money and exposure?
Ow, my head hurts now.
I’ve seen that claim, but never really bothered to look into it. No reason, he lost me with his assertion our policies in the previous decade brought about 9/11.
B.S.
Just because you don’t agree with Ron Paul, doesn’t mean you don’t believe in limited government.
The IRS is an agency of the executive branch.
However, I do not believe the president has authority to abolish agencies established by law on his sole authority.
The Constitution gives the taxing power to Congress, with all laws affecting taxation originating in the House. Congress created the IRS to implement the tax system it established by law.
If the president can just ignore these laws when he sees fit, then the power to tax (or not tax, the same thing) has been removed from Congress and appropriated by the President.
“I’ve seen that claim, but never really bothered to look into it. No reason, he lost me with his assertion our policies in the previous decade brought about 9/11.”
Our coddling of repressive Arab dictators is in direct proportion to the rise of islamism as the opposition party.
Of course, the Soviets coddled Arab dictators leading to the same effect.
I don’t agree with him 100% on that point, but it’s kind of moot.
Socialism will destroy us from within, and all the major candidates in both parties support it to varying degrees.
A lot of people don’t agree with Ron Paul. I don’t agree with Ron Paul on some things.
But most people don’t rant and rave about it.
The ones that do, from what I’ve seen, are not small government types.
‘Socialism will destroy us from within’
Indeed.
So will a kook theory if we withdraw within our own borders, and pretend its 1880.
Would you please point me to the place where Dr. Paul says he would unilaterally abolish the IRS?
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.