Posted on 04/26/2011 7:43:00 AM PDT by Crush
Ron Paul wants the (federal)government to match the Constitution..
How much socialism delites YOU!..?
I mean just How much "nanny State" are you willing to accept?..
A little, a lot... or somewhere in between?..
Social Security(SSA) is pure socialism.. NOT like pure socialism.. but in your face PURE SOCIALISM..
SSA always was... is now... and always will be... pure socialism..
Are you a socialist?.. How much of one are you?..
Ron Paul has considered socialism and rejected it..
Capitalism creates new wealth, socialism uses that wealth up.. burns it.. wastes it..
I posted the following just a little bit ago. It specifically states why I oppose Ron Paul and ALL libertarians for elective office.
At one time Ron Paul was a big supporter of Ronald Reagan. By 1988 that changed. Paul decided to run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket and he ran against the Reagan administration. In fact Paul called Reagan a "dramatic failure" as President. Read the Meet the Press transcript from Dec.23 2007, Link.
If Reagan were alive today I seriously doubt he would be in agreement with Ron Paul or endorse anyone who would blame America for the 911 attacks and not the terrorists. Reagan would have stood side by side with Bush and Cheney in support of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Reagan would have supported the Patriot Act, FISA, Gitmo and enhanced interrogation. Also, Reagan would have vehemently opposed Ron Paul's call to bring home all 500K+ US troops from around the world. Reagan was not an isolationist and he didn't believe in a foreign policy that stopped America from defending her best interests or helping our friends and allies.
Ron Paul's idea of a foreign policy agenda would be dangerous for America. And his real domestic policy desires would leave us with anarchy and chaos. Paul isn't fit to be a member of the House of Representatives, let alone potus.
So you think he's that DUMB!... You over simplify his positions..
You MUST demand a 90% cut in federal largess to come close to a 20% cut in it.. or even a 10% cut.. or currently a 1% cut..
OR you don't know how things work in Washington D.C...
Question: WHO is the realist.. You or Ron Paul?..
I don't think you wanted that second 'not' in that statement. Anyway, we disagree with your contention that those posts are without substance. Stop beating this to death and learn to live with disagreement.
if pointing out that certain Freepers have fallen into the same trap...
For the last time, we don't agree that we've fallen into any trap. You're the only one saying so, and we're not going to agree. So, get over it.
I think Ronald Reagan was a realist. I think Reagan was right in his approach to government. See my tagline.
Ron Paul is out of step with mainstream conservatism. We conservatives want to see a huge roll back in the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy and a return to Federalism. Let the states handle things that were meant for the states and leave the feds with their limited powers. Paul and other libertarians, past and present (Murry Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Nick Gillespie) want to roll the federal govt back to 1787. Not just in theory, but literally.
That is not only libertarian idealism carried to the extreme, its farcical. As long as Ron Paul pushes his brand of federal governance, yes, I think Ron Paul is a dummy. More importantly, he's dangerous to America's future.
Who else is lobbying for that to happen EXCEPT Ron Paul?..
OK... Rand is too... and a very few others..
You don't seem to know who is you're friend and who is your enemy(politically)..
Main stream conservatism is RINO based.... you know..
Hard fact that most "conservatives" are RINOs but its true..
Thats why the terms "fiscal conservative" AND "social conservative" work.. cause its true..
Most conservatives are Socialists on some issues..
Ron and Rand Paul are conservatives ON ALL ISSUES..
LOL That is funny and absurdly ridiculous.
There are 178 conservatives in the GOP Congressional Republican Study Committee led by Rep Jim Jordan. I'd bet nearly everyone would be far better as potus then Ron Paul. My guy Rep Doug Lamborn for one. If we had 100% conservatives on the GOP side in the House and a conservative GOP majority Senate, Obama would be playing Clinton II and NOT Carter II. Granted, we need to elect more conservatives to Congress. Its as simple as that. Just not more libertarians.
>>>>>Ron and Rand Paul are conservatives ON ALL ISSUES..
Both Ron and Rand Paul are libertarians, not conservatives. Rand is only marginally less kooky than his old man.
You are delusionary.. they are both republicans..
But you do have a point many republicans are in fact democrats..
So.. I guess you have a point.. what some seem they ARE NOT!...
Ron and Rand are Republicans because they could NEVER get elected as Libertarians, NOT IN THEIR WILDEST DREAMS! As bad as America is today, and as far as it has evolved --- or devolved --- into a social welfare state since the progressive age and the New Deal of FDR. Most Americans still believe in traditional values and beliefs that made the US great. Most folks don't want to see the Paulard libertarian agenda of anarchy and chaos at home, and isolationism, protectionism and death to Americans abroad become the standards for this country and its people.
His comment had validity. The posts he was commenting on had none.
FUELED THE FLAMES...?? guess I don’t think much of your opinion. Maybe you dwell to much on your FEELINGS ?
I have been refreshed on just how screwed up RP is. Tried to be nice but you are a clear example of that futile act.
Well done bro!
Post any thread, at any time of a person who blames America for the Jihad, and expect me and a whole lot of other people to pile on the useful idiot.
Oh yeah, like milking American taxpayers out of "Wild Shrimp" research dollars for the other useful idiots in Lake Jackson Texas who keep voting for this "Mr. Constitution" fraud?
Ron Paul - The Jihad's Representative in the US House
Look up the difference between "Party" and "Ideology". Hell, I'll even bet that Wikipedia gets it right....look it up. Parties are the vehicles that the ideology rides. Like a person, you can switch cars all you want, but that does not change who you are.
Well Duuuugh.. pretty smart of them.. libertarian is just a word..
Like G. Bush is a Progressive.. republican is just a word to him too..
You do know that "Conservative" is a word that liberals invented to offset their identity as "Progressives"..
They invented it, "conservative" meaning same old, same old.. opposed to progressive.. or forward thinking..
There are few that rely on the Constitution as thoroughly as do Libertarians..
Most Republicans only like the constitution when it matches their party platform..
Conservative is a very nebulous term.. it can mean most anything..
You have him confused with Dick Turban..
No, I have it spot on right.
Besides, Dick Turban is in the Senate and is not as useful of an idiot as is Ron Paul.
Why does Ron Paul always point to the military first when advocating spending cuts? Is he protecting his "Wild Shrimp" pork projects?
Words have definitions for a reason. Example.
>>>>>You do know that "Conservative" is a word that liberals invented to offset their identity as "Progressives"..
Really. According to my dictionary, the word "conservative" has been around since the 14th century, or the 1300's. The first known use of the word "liberal" is from 1820. The first known use of the word "progressive" is from 1846. And the first known use of the word "libertarian" comes from 1789.
My point? Liberals didn't invent the word, "conservative" and conservative is no less or more nebulous than liberal, progressive or libertarian.
You need to buy a dictionary and use it.
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.