Posted on 05/13/2011 6:35:05 PM PDT by NoLibZone
My agreement with Ron Paul is on the very narrow topic of economics. He is right on this topic. That is about it.
My agreement with Reagan's policies is much broader, but it is not on his economic policies. Why not agree that Ron Paul is right on one topic? If we do not show the ability to discern the mistakes of James Baker and Milton Friedman (central planner of paper money and interest rates), we will continue to have a government-controlled economy.
If you ask me which points I feel very strongly against Ron Paul, there are many, but I would put inaction against Islamofascism at the top. I know that it is different topics that rankle different people. Even though it is his opposing his foreign policy that is important to me, what gets me is that many Republicans who claim to be conservatives get a free pass when they are not merely for inaction against Islamofascists, but actively support it by lobbying for Pakistan and other Islamofascist countries. That is the point I was making.
they aren’t conservative enough, so lets all support RON PAUL and shoot heroin, allow gay marriage, smoke dope, allow sexual revolution, ban the Christians and the Bible from public use...
Yeah, WE weren’t CONSERVATIVE enough for Ron Paul
Has Ron Paul ever apologized for supporting Adam Kokesh and Code Pink??
One word: Goofball.
Ron Paul’s and your false claim of what Reagan did.
I have always thought Ron Paul was bad.
But his rant resembles far too many at FR directed at George w bush.
"I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy."
Dr Ron Paul in his letter to RNC Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf.
http://www.textfiles.com/politics/ron_paul.txt
Somewhat of a stretch, but not a huge one.
You are trying hard, admirably so, to find Ron Paul quotes you don’t like. This is almost one of those, but you have to twist it around a bit to get it to say what you want.
Ron Paul has a long career, you can find something better.
Another thing to focus on is do you agree with what he is saying. And some you might agree with and some you might not.
“the exaltation of international banking” - well, I honestly can’t recall if international banking was exalted in the 80s, but I’m against the exaltation of international banking.
Ron Paul was disappointed, because he was hopeful. With Bushes, you know you aren’t going to get Conservativism. If a Bush is pretending to be a Conservative, you know he’s lying. But Reagan was a Conservative, so there was the best hope of actually making huge cuts in government in decades.
Huh?
It’s just a cut and paste of what he actually said, instead of what the headline said he said.
Trying to be accurate.
Ron Paul has repeatedly said Ron Reagan was bad for the nation and a failure .
Ronald Reagan has given us a deficit 10 times greater than what we had with the Democrats,
Paul told the Christian Science Monitor in 1987. It didnt take more than a month after 1981, to realize there would be no changes.
Ron Paul is crazier than an outhouse rat! This evening when I heard him on TV in an excerpt from a recent interview stating that it was wrong to kill Bin Laden, I knew that his campaign was over before it even started. Because it proved to me that he has not sought the mental help he so obviously needed the last time he campaigned. He almost makes Ross Perot seem normal!
Once again, a lot of energy will be expended trying to pretend Wrong Paul is a major contender.
And once again, he’ll prove to be nothing more than a low single-digit also-ran.
They’re real pictures, not photoshops. The antiPauls love their photoshops.
The truth is that Ron Paul was disappointed by the results of the Reagan Era - not conservative enough.
Ron Paul wanted much less Federal Government then, and now.
Do people want much less Federal Government now? Some yes, some no.
Ron Paul with owners of Storm Front a White Nationalist site.
Yes the linking of Ron Paul and Ron Reagan is false.
It’s always interesting how you Paulbots just manage to skip over everything being posted about him that is irrefutable and that is very unflattering as though you didn’t see it.
Reagan is easily the best President since the Founding Fathers, but Ron Paul has a legitimate criticism. Reagan could have been more fiscally conservative.
Ron Paul is consistent, and he was right about deficits way back then.
I have never heard of a connection between Ron Paul and Code Pink.
You are right, the problem is knee jerk Republicans think he was the “cats pajamas”, when he was nothing but a nice man, with a lot of wrong policies. The biggest of all was his belief that we could spend more than we took in, and grow out of debt. Reagan was the Father of the debt bomb facing us now, with Bush I nursemaiding it along, GW expanding the casing, and 0bama loading plutonium into the pile. How Republicans at the very top of govt, can claim to be the party of small govt with a straight face, is evidence of good acting.
Go TEA party, tear the Republican party to the ground, and build it up as a true Conservative defender of our Constitution.
I read it, I just don’t think it has the relevance that you do. I’ll say that those would be some sentences that you could use if you wanted Ron Paul quotes to use against Ron Paul. I certainly would prefer that certain quotes not have been made. But once that’s said, ok.
Ron Paul felt that the results were insufficiently conservative.
So do I.
Because if you don’t, if you think that there can be no more Conservative than Reagan, or the Reagan Administration, or the Reagan Era, than you’re saying that the Budget can’t be cut. Government Spending can never be lowered.
Because when you actually look at it, Government did grow. I’d blame the Democrats for that, more than Ron Paul did back in the late 80s, but I want a much much smaller Federal Government, bound by the Constitution, and so does Ron Paul.
He did back then.
He thought that Reagan was going to abolish the Department of Education. It didn’t happen. That made him disappointed. Same with the Department of Energy. He wanted it abolished, he thought it would be abolished.
If your goal is to abolish the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, and you don’t, were you a “success” at that? Or is there another word? What would be that word be?
Another thing Paul lied about?
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.