No. Not without a wide variety of crew-served weapons. 
But seriously, I think we'd all be surprised at the number of issues they probably agree on.
Posted on 12/13/2010 11:36:14 AM PST by pissant
Long before the tea party movement grabbed half a dozen Senate seats, before its early proponents ever even dreamed of wearing Colonial-era garb in public, there was longtime Texas Republican Ron Paul, the one guy in Congress trying to abolish the Federal Reserve and shrink the government into near nonexistence. Paul won a devoted-bordering-on-cultish following during his 2008 presidential run, one which, obviously, didn't work out. But now Paul is telling the Times that "it’s at least 50-50" that he'll try again in 2012, and this time, with the movement built largely on his libertarian philosophy now a real force in American politics and expected to be decisive in the Republican primaries.
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
At his age Dr. Paul is most likely to take down a spot in a nursing home.
Now you are humping Ron Paul? I really feel sorry for you and your case of PDS. Once again how much executive experience does he have?
No. Not without a wide variety of crew-served weapons.
But seriously, I think we'd all be surprised at the number of issues they probably agree on.
i don't have an opinion on that subject.
i do know that Paul has the plumb assignment of his career in Congress. We need him right where he is.
It looks to me like the MSM is trying to play divide and conquer with the Tea Party Movement by playing off one person against another.
Last i checked, Sarah Palin wasn't running for anything, and Ron Paul was only running for his seat in Congress.
This stuff is starting to get nuttier than Ron Paul is supposed to be (according to some so-called conservatives on this board).
LOL!! Not physically or mentally.
I’d never heard of it either ‘til a couple of months ago.
Well, people keep citing Palin’s run as Mccain’s toadie VP as “experience”. Paul has run 3 times now, I think, for Prez. Once at the top of the Libertarian Party, I think. ROFL
Your Wiki article is misguided and wrong. Both Jefferson and Washington rejected non-intervention arguments and intervened and waged war in order to protect American interests abroad during the first Barbary war. Many at the time argued that we shouldn’t be concerned with interests in the Old World but that argument was rejected by both Jefferson and Washington. Thus the pervert Ron Paul is dead wrong and clueless about the Founders.
Ron Paul is an isolationist or a non-interventionist depending on the issue. He has a love for Islamic dictatorships and terrorists. He hasn’t a clue though about freedom and would be a disaster if ever given enough power.
Last night pissant was humping Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as having done "yeoman's work" during the 2010 campaign.
The guy is a way out there troll.
I think that a Ron Paul campaign could help Palin by positioning her as the moderate between the “kook right” and RINO left of the Republican party. If Paul eventually withdrew, he could throw his support behind Palin as a payback for her early endorsement of Rand and promise of Treasury Secretary appointment.
The Barbary pirates were seizing American ships in the med - a legitimate reason for the actions the US took and completely in line with the good doctor's foreign policy positions.
...pervert Ron Paul...
A violation of FR's posting rules and a good reason to want no further interaction with you.
Ron Paul is an isolationist or a non-interventionist depending on the issue. He has a love for Islamic dictatorships and terrorists. He hasn’t a clue though about freedom and would be a disaster if ever given enough power.Good summary of RP.
Even Jefferson the ulimate constutionalist saw the need to occasionally ‘punch a international bully in the nose!’
“Michael Oren thinks that he made the decision reluctantly, finally forced into it by the arrogant behavior of Tripoli, which seized two American brigs and set off a chain reaction of fresh demands from other Barbary states. I believe—because of the encounter with the insufferable Abd Al-Rahman and because of his long engagement with Jones—that Jefferson had long sought a pretext for war. His problem was his own party and the clause in the Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war. With not atypical subtlety, Jefferson took a shortcut through this thicket in 1801 and sent the navy to North Africa on patrol, as it were, with instructions to enforce existing treaties and punish infractions of them. Our third president did not inform Congress of his authorization of this mission until the fleet was too far away to recall.”
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html
How is “pervert Ron Paul” a “violation of FR’s posting rules”?
Dan Amira is drinking a very strong mix of the Ron Paul Koolaid.
Don’t discuss. Just cheer. Got it?
I think Ron Paul would be ill-advised to run for President yet again. Bad idea... he’s better utilized right where he’ll be soon, overseeing the Fed. Maybe later on he can be on Palin’s cabinet. SecTrez, mebbe?
Yes he could, if for some reason she started making comments that she agrees with him on many of his more “esoteric” views...
Wrong. The pervert Ron Paul has already proven that he has no concern for American National Security and has consistently taken the side of dictators and terrorists. He consistently takes positions that would threaten this nation and his foreign policy would never be accepted by Jefferson or Washington as proven by the Barbary war.
Paul has stated that he thinks that homosexuality should be treated by our military as being equal to heterosexuality. That makes him a pervert. I doubt that telling the truth about someone’s political position is not a violation of any FR rule.
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.