Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul: A New Beginning
Zerohedge.com ^ | 11-11-2012 | Ron Paul (Via Tyler Durden)

Posted on 11/11/2012 5:29:55 PM PST by Renfield

America is over $16 trillion in debt. The “official” unemployment rate still hovers around 8%.

Our federal government claims the right to spy on American citizens, indefinitely detain them, and even assassinate them without trial.

Domestic drones fly over the country for civilian surveillance.

Twelve million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, yet political pundits scratch their heads.

It’s not hard to see why, though.

To go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, “stimulus packages,” and foreign military adventurism, the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans’ liberties I’ve named above.

As my campaign showed, the American people are fed up. Many realized heading into Tuesday that regardless of who won the presidential election, the status quo would be the real victor.

GOP leadership is now questioning why they didn’t perform better.

They’re looking at demographic changes in the United States and implying minorities can only be brought into the party by loudly advocating for abandoning what little remains of their limited government platform and endorsing more statist policies.

My presidential campaign proved that standing for freedom brings people together.

Liberty is popular – regardless of race, religion, or creed.

As long as the GOP establishment continues to not only reject the liberty message, but actively drive away the young, diverse coalition that supports those principles, it will see results similar to Tuesday’s outcome.

A renewed respect for liberty is the only way forward for the Republican Party and for our country.

I urge all my Republican colleagues to join the liberty movement in fighting for a brighter future.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gop; liberty; paul; ronpaul; ronpaul2012
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-152 next last
To: gunsequalfreedom

Rand has no more chance of getting elected than Ron did.


51 posted on 11/11/2012 8:10:52 PM PST by dbeall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DavidB Dr
Your hero never endorsed Mitt Romney. His pride and stupidity let him stand on the side lines and let the worst enemy to our freedom and liberty ever take office for four more years.

If Ron Paul is for limited government, why would he endorse a statist like Romney?

Obama will appoint 3 supreme court justices.

And Romney has a horrible track record for his judicial nominations, at least as bad as Obama's.

He will do damage that will last for decades while people worried about Mitt not being conservative enough.

They were right: because Mitt Romney isn't conservative, never was.

52 posted on 11/11/2012 8:14:20 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
1% for a third-party is huge nowadays — ever since Ross Perot ran 3rd party,

BULLSQUAT! Perot received nearly 20% of the popular vote in 1992, including mine. There hasn't been a viable alternative party candidate since.

That helps explain at least some of the greater than 50% of eligible voters not-voting.

That is an admission on your part that there wasn't an alternative party candidate worth voting for. You must be content having the anti-American POS occupying the WH for another 4 years.

53 posted on 11/11/2012 8:22:22 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Seaplaner; gunsequalfreedom
Ever the delusional, raving lunatic.

Why does something said by a "delusional, raving lunatic" bother you so much?

Perhaps Winston Churchill has the answer:

"A little mouse – a little tiny mouse! – of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic."

54 posted on 11/11/2012 8:22:27 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
And Romney has a horrible track record for his judicial nomination

When did Romney nominatet someone to the USSC?

55 posted on 11/11/2012 8:26:16 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
And Romney has a horrible track record for his judicial nomination

When did Romney nominate someone to the USSC?

56 posted on 11/11/2012 8:26:50 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
>>1% for a third-party is huge nowadays — ever since Ross Perot ran 3rd party,
>
>BULLSQUAT! Perot received nearly 20% of the popular vote in 1992, including mine. There hasn't been a viable alternative party candidate since.

Hm, might have helped to read the rest of the sentence: ever since Ross Perot ran 3rd party, got a big chunk of the general vote, and the Big Two changed the rules so to undermine any 3rd party, that is.

>>That helps explain at least some of the greater than 50% of eligible voters not-voting.
>
>That is an admission on your part that there wasn't an alternative party candidate worth voting for.

Or, like I said: how many people believe that there are only two [viable] parties[?]

You must be content having the anti-American POS occupying the WH for another 4 years.

Nope, but then again I realize that I am utterly powerless and lack any sort of legitimacy (standing, they call it). [/bitter-sarcasm]

57 posted on 11/11/2012 8:29:43 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

>>And Romney has a horrible track record for his judicial nomination
>
>When did Romney nominatet someone to the USSC?

He was Governor, he nominated in that capacity, those are also judicial nominations.
(That is, not all judicial nominations are to the USSC.)


58 posted on 11/11/2012 8:31:46 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
the Big Two changed the rules

If you can't present a viable candidate, you are going to get exactly the attention that the alternative parties have garnered in the last few elections. Rules or no rules.

like I said: how many people believe that there are only two [viable] parties

I don't know, do you? Why didn't that 50% vote for one of the alternatives? They were on the ballot.

59 posted on 11/11/2012 8:36:00 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
He was Governor

Which is a helluva long way from being the POTUS nominating USSC justices and federal judges nationwide!

60 posted on 11/11/2012 8:56:08 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

I’m sorry but if libertians draw no line in the sand with regards to the murdering of children in the womb, then they become a culture of death not liberty. The child in the womb is a seperate body from that of the mother. Sheesh!

The end results of a culture who murders their own children is suicide.

Say Goodbye to America!

BTW! Rand Paul begged libertarians to vote for Romney.
Why? Because he has enough smarts to know that with this current regime, your freedom and mine will disapear!


61 posted on 11/11/2012 8:59:17 PM PST by billys kid ("Bury me on my head for one day this world will be upside down." (Diogenes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

> Which is a helluva long way from being the POTUS nominating USSC justices and federal judges nationwide!

...completely minimizing/discounting the judges he appointed to the State’s Supreme Court?


62 posted on 11/11/2012 9:02:20 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
.completely minimizing/discounting the judges he appointed to the State’s Supreme Court?

You really don't comprehend the difference between the state and federal courts, do you?

63 posted on 11/11/2012 9:41:24 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

you left off ... creating “Google Ron Paul” yard signs ...


64 posted on 11/12/2012 4:58:32 AM PST by Patton@Bastogne (Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin will DEFEAT the Obama-Romney Socialist Gay-Marriage Axis of Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

Q: You say that the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits, including marijuana, cocaine, even heroin.

A: It’s an issue of protecting liberty across the board. If you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. We want freedom [including] when it comes to our personal habits.

Q: Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?

A: Yes, in essence, if we leave it to the states. For over 100 years, they WERE legal. You’re implying if we legalize heroin tomorrow, everyone’s gonna use heroin.

How many people here are going to use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody! “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws!”

A: I never thought heroin would get applause!

*facepalm*


65 posted on 11/12/2012 5:24:42 AM PST by McGruff (No New RINOs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
>>completely minimizing/discounting the judges he appointed to the State’s Supreme Court?
>
>You really don't comprehend the difference between the state and federal courts, do you?

That's not the point: the point is that Romney has appointed judges who are terrible: just as liberal and activist as any Obama's appointed.
It is therefore most reasonable to assume he would appoint similar to federal positions. IOW, A Romney win would have resulted in exactly the same sort of people being nominated as Obama has nominated.


And the difference [betwixt State & Federal], is merely one of jurisdiction.

66 posted on 11/12/2012 5:57:26 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

Ron Paul spot on as usual.


67 posted on 11/12/2012 6:02:42 AM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
The Founders, even the more authoritarian ones like Hamilton, favored a limited role for the Federal government, primarily foreign affairs and defense, including nonintervention in overseas conflicts where the U.S. was not attacked, a gold and silver backed currency, an unregulated market economy, and no charity except through churches and private individuals. The Founders were far closer to what we would call today libertarians than conservatives, who for te most part would have fit in well with the liberals of the Kennedy-Johnson days than with the Founders or even the conservatives of that time, of the Taft-Goldwater stripe.
68 posted on 11/12/2012 6:19:16 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: billys kid

Ron Paul is pro life remember? He delivered 4000 FNG babies for Gods’ sake and some of delusional “I’m more conservative than anyone” crowd still attack him.

Amazing. No wonder we lost so badly. Total denial running rampant on this site.

I voted RR, but Romney was my last choice and we would have been better off w Paul, Bachmann whoever in retrospect.


69 posted on 11/12/2012 6:44:37 AM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote
"Amazing. No wonder we lost so badly. "

Yup first the GOP tells Palin and the tea party supporters to pound sand. Then tells the RP supporters to pound sand too. I do not think they will win many elections running as Bush neocons. This election should have been a cake walk for the GOP, but NOOO, they just had to run as Bush neocons again. Just like McCain last election. Keep attacking your base GOP and you will keep losing elections.

70 posted on 11/12/2012 6:50:31 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

When I see people endlessly attacking Ron Paul for advocating limited govt and freedom and liberty of the individual and trying to convince us W and his mob of corrupt big govt “compassionate conservatives” is the path for the future I know the GOP is over as a nationally party.

This is not where the electorate is. People are simply not going to vote for a GOP that advocates endless war, “compassionate conservatism”, drug war, police state, etc.

The sooner we all repudiate the W years as a grave mistake, the police state, the war on drugs, the drones, the undeclared wars, the better off we will be.


71 posted on 11/12/2012 6:56:06 AM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
The founding fathers said that without morality being reflected in our laws, the republic would crumble. A favorite line of Libertarians is this; "you cannot legislate morality". I don't know how many times I've heard Libertaians repeat that nonsense. And that nonsense is the antithesis of the views of our Christian founding fathers.

 

_____________________________________


72 posted on 11/12/2012 7:20:28 AM PST by CaptainKrunch (Freedom does not promise safety and security, freedom only promises freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; Alaska Wolf

Before he was driven from office (he wanted to run for reelection) with 34% approval, Romney appointed ZERO conservative judges.

Only 25% of his judges were even republicans at all, the rest were not, of course Mitt himself had only rejoined the GOP in October 1993, after refusing to during the Reagan revolution.

With Romney it is the little things, like leaving the republican party and eventually coming to support democrats with donations, fundraising, and even voting democrat after rejecting Reagan and his conservatism, and the Reagan revolution.

“I think Bill Weld comes as close as anyone,” Romney said when asked whom in his party he aligned with.

“I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush,”

“I’m not a partisan politician. My hope is that, after this election, it will be the moderates of both parties who will control the Senate, not the Jesse Helmses.”

“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”


73 posted on 11/12/2012 10:11:30 AM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Patton@Bastogne
you left off ... creating “Google Ron Paul” yard signs ...

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

74 posted on 11/12/2012 10:26:33 AM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
A Romney win would have resulted in exactly the same sort of people being nominated as Obama has nominated.

Conjecture and speculation. Reagan was a democrat. Goode was a democrat. Both facts.

And the difference [betwixt State & Federal], is merely one of jurisdiction.

There's a huge difference between state and federal jurisdiction. There is a reason for the USSC!

It's over. Romney lost and we now get to suffer 4 more years of Obama, his USSC nominees, attack on the 2nd Amendment, Holder, Biden, Clinton and Janet Napolitano. Hope you're happy.

75 posted on 11/12/2012 11:26:33 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Before he was driven from office (he wanted to run for reelection) with 34% approval, Romney appointed ZERO conservative judges.

If Romney was so liberal as you claim, why was he driven from office in a liberal state?

With Romney it is the little things, like leaving the republican party and eventually coming to support democrats with donations, fundraising, and even voting democrat after rejecting Reagan and his conservatism, and the Reagan revolution.

Reagan was a democrat as was presidential candidate, lawyer Virgil Goode. Libertarian Ron Paul can't make up his mind what he is. See your problem?

The election is over, you anti-Romney people won and now we are saddled with four more years of Obama, Biden, Holder, Clinton, Napolitano, attacks on the 2nd Amendment and USSC nominees like Kagan and Sotomayor. Hope you're happy.

76 posted on 11/12/2012 12:36:16 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

Romney was booted for incompetence, he was the fourth republican governor in a row, in a state that prefers GOP governors.

Reagan last voted for a democrat president in 1948, the President he served under in WWII, which had just ended 3 years before, Reagan then became known for being conservative and campaigning for Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, and Nixon in 1960, in time becoming a conservative icon, did that touch you and Mitt? Well it did affect Mitt, it drove him to leave the republican party.

Care to explain how voting for Truman in 1948 compares to Mitt voting democrat, fund raising as a democrat and supporting democrats in the 1990s?

You don’t think that different historical periods and political eras exist?

Any difference of the pre-1960s, pre-Vietnam war, pre- abortion wars, pre-Reagan Revolution, 1940s and the 1990s?

“I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush,”


77 posted on 11/12/2012 1:08:34 PM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

>>A Romney win would have resulted in exactly the same sort of people being nominated as Obama has nominated.
>
>Conjecture and speculation. Reagan was a democrat. Goode was a democrat. Both facts.

Unlike Goode and Regan, Romney never transitioned to a conservative stance.


78 posted on 11/12/2012 1:21:06 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Care to explain

I already have explained. Romney lost and now you appear to be delighted with 4 more years of a known quantity and his failed administration.

“I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush.

So was I and I still am a registered Independent. I'm also intellectually capable of discerning the differences between Obama and any Republican, Libertarian, Green, Constitutional, etc. party candidate.

You can whine about Romney for eternity, but we have to live with an anti-American POS in the WH for four more years.

79 posted on 11/12/2012 1:48:23 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Unlike Goode and Regan, Romney never transitioned to a conservative stance.

Are you anticipating with glee Obama's next attack on the 2nd Amendment and more restrictions on the oil and gas industry?

80 posted on 11/12/2012 1:54:06 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

You didn’t explain anything.

Reagan last voted for a democrat president in 1948, the President he served under in WWII, which had just ended 3 years before, Reagan then became known for being conservative and campaigning for Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, and Nixon in 1960, in time becoming a conservative icon, did that touch you and Mitt? Well it did affect Mitt, it drove him to leave the republican party.

Care to explain how voting for Truman in 1948 compares to Mitt voting democrat, fund raising as a democrat and supporting democrats in the 1990s?

You don’t think that different historical periods and political eras exist?

Romney did not start as an independent, he left the republican party to escape Reagan and conservatism.

Romney eventually became a supporter of the democrats and a fundraiser and voter.

Your devotion to the hard left rino even after the election, is bizarre, now we need to marginalize him and make sure that his liberal influence is diminished or eliminated in the GOP.

The election is over, now you are simply promoting liberalism.


81 posted on 11/12/2012 2:05:52 PM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Are you anticipating with glee Obama's next attack on the 2nd Amendment and more restrictions on the oil and gas industry?

Ron Paul is pro 2nd Amendment and anti regulation as it pertains to industry. He's closer to my side than Romney ever was.

82 posted on 11/12/2012 2:06:12 PM PST by Sirius Lee (RE SP - Republicans, from Mitt Romney ..to Karl Rove... are said to be concerned she will win.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee
Ron Paul is pro 2nd Amendment and anti regulation as it pertains to industry. He's closer to my side than Romney ever was.

How many states did Ron Paul carry in his flip flop Libertarian/Republican presidential runs?

83 posted on 11/12/2012 2:23:07 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

How many states did Paul win? He’s in no position to tell anyone how to win elections.


84 posted on 11/12/2012 2:30:19 PM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fee
The Ron Paul kooks in Iowa have nearly destroyed RPI. They think Republican Party of Iowa meant Ron Paul Iowa. These weasels used deception to take over the state central committe and have run the whole party apparatus in the ground.

These guys came in with both barrels blazing publicly stating they were only going to fund and support approved candidates.

Contributions dropped to nearly zero but they're still there. They are totally dysfunctional.

85 posted on 11/12/2012 2:37:51 PM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

>>Unlike Goode and Regan, Romney never transitioned to a conservative stance.
>
>Are you anticipating with glee Obama’s next attack on the 2nd Amendment and more restrictions on the oil and gas industry?

Who are you to question me on 2nd Amendment (and similar) stances? — I’d almost be willing to bet actual money I’ve done more on the subject of the right to keep and bear arms than you.


86 posted on 11/12/2012 2:46:33 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Who are you to question me on 2nd Amendment (and similar) stances?

You and your ilk have been the "people" stupidly claiming there was no difference between Obama and Romney, Democrat and Republican.

I’d almost be willing to bet actual money I’ve done more on the subject of the right to keep and bear arms than you.

How much? You'll have to do better than how the 2nd Amendment is honored in Alaska.

87 posted on 11/12/2012 3:41:14 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

>> I’d almost be willing to bet actual money I’ve done more on the subject of the right to keep and bear arms than you.
>
>How much? You’ll have to do better than how the 2nd Amendment is honored in Alaska.

Which means you, personally, haven’t done much, if anything.
Here’s something I have done: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2874833/posts?page=19#19
Yeah, it’s just a little thing, but I did it.

>>Who are you to question me on 2nd Amendment (and similar) stances?
>
>You and your ilk have been the “people” stupidly claiming there was no difference between Obama and Romney, Democrat and Republican.

That’s because there isn’t much difference between Romney and Obama; both are socialists, statists, and untrustworthy.
As to the Republican party: when was the last time it (as a party) *actively* pursued its party planks?


88 posted on 11/12/2012 3:54:41 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Which means you, personally, haven’t done much

There is a reason you are known as Paultards and Libtards. Let me know when your state allows any law-abiding adult to legally carry a handgun, whether openly or concealed. No special permit is required. However, Alaska issues handgun permits to its residents so that they can carry handguns into other states that recognize Alaska's laws.

That’s because there isn’t much difference between Romney and Obama;

I've already posted two major differences. Do you like the 16 trillion dollar deficit, high unemployment and restrictions on oil and gas development? Well you've got them, thanks to Obama, not Romney!

89 posted on 11/12/2012 4:51:02 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

>>Which means you, personally, haven’t done much
>
>There is a reason you are known as Paultards and Libtards.

And? — If you’re an example of GOP conservatism I can say that your abrasive, insulting, and arrogant attitude is not doing much to win my to your point of view.

>Let me know when your state allows any law-abiding adult to legally carry a handgun, whether openly or concealed.

So, because the states I’ve been have their own problems, which I have challenged and only had very small success against — because of that you dismiss what I have actually done?

Also you completely missed my point: when the work is finished there’s nothing for you to do; when the job is yet to be don there are things to be done.


90 posted on 11/12/2012 4:59:24 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
>>That’s because there isn’t much difference between Romney and Obama;
>
>I've already posted two major differences. Do you like the 16 trillion dollar deficit, high unemployment and restrictions on oil and gas development? Well you've got them, thanks to Obama, not Romney!

Let me break it down into simple terms: Romney is a liar -- his whole campaign was a lie, because he is a liar; he stands for nothing, period.


91 posted on 11/12/2012 5:05:09 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
If you’re an example of GOP conservatism

I'm not a Republican. Look, you can harp about Romney for eternity, but now we have to endure 4 more years of the worst POS POTUS in history.

So, because the states I’ve been have their own problems, which I have challenged and only had very small success against

You threw down the gauntlet, remember? I've worked for 2nd Amendment rights for decades and have seen increasing success over the years, no thanks to liberals!

when the work is finished there’s nothing for you to do

The fact is that our work is never finished. Because like illegals and muslimaniacs, liberals just keep coming at us.

92 posted on 11/12/2012 5:13:48 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Let me break it down into simple terms:Romney is a liar

You just can't let it go. You're obsessed with Romney and never once are you critical of the worst POS POTUS we've ever had. Like I stated previously; there is a reason you are known as Paultards and libtards.

93 posted on 11/12/2012 5:20:05 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
Not all Libertarians are non-Christian, either of the Objectivist stripe or positivists and agnostics like Murray Rothbard or Robert Heinlein. Ron Paul is a Southern Baptist. Many of the Lew Rockwell/Mises Institute authors are Catholic: Rockwell himself, Thomas Woods, Karen De Coster, Andrew Napolitano, Thomas DiLorenzo.

Whether they are irreligious or religious, their position is that of governmental minimalism. Christian nations such as the United States pre-1933 can follow governmental minimalism. Other nations styling themselves as Christian, such as Calvin's Geneva, England under Elizabeth I and Cromwell, Spain during the Inquisition, etc., were tyrannies with secret police, star chamber proceedings, and suppression of religious dissidents, including theft of their land, slavery, and mass murder.

If you want to talk about policy matters, most people who are styled conservatives today oppose abolishing the welfare state, restoring the gold standard, and eliminating Federal police agencies. As stated earlier, most modern conservatives are closer to New Deal/Great Society policies than to those of Harding and Coolidge. At most, they oppose further expansion of the welfare state, e.g. Obamacare.

94 posted on 11/12/2012 5:50:49 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
“We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

Why do you assume that the lack of government will result in depravity?

It has been my experience that too much government leads to depravity under the color of law. We have more laws than ever, and more corruption than ever.

Individuals would be free to pray in the schools they pay for, to hire whomever they choose (to keep depravity out of their workforce), etc.

LIBERTY comes with responsibility, and substituting law for individual responsibility and accountability only works with honest and moral people. The law has only become a device to enforce corruption, especially when the Government ignores it.

Power corrupts, and the State has far too much power.YMMV

95 posted on 11/12/2012 6:15:40 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

“Why do you assume that the lack of government will result in depravity?”

I don’t “assume” anything. I know it to be fact. Anarchy has ALWAYS lead to depravity and worse. Even a “corrupt” government is better than no government.

Hey, the argument here is about the role of government. I think (know actually) that it is right and proper for government to regulate behavior (AKA morality) to maintain order and restrain depravity. The more immoral a people are, the more the goverment needs to regulate behavior.

I believe you are mistating what one of the founder’s stated. He, can’t remember who, stated that the limited government being established in America was ONLY suitable for a moral people. The reason being that “moral” people were self governing and required no restraints on most of them.

Sadly, this is NOT the case today. Removing restraints on behavior as the Libertarians (yes they are LIBERTINES)want will only add to the depravity of our culture.

It will NEVER be possible to have a society where “everyman does what is right in his own eyes.”


96 posted on 11/12/2012 6:41:32 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
"Ron Paul is a Southern Baptist"

Putting the point of minimalist government aside for moment, if Ron Paul is a Christian (irregardless of denomination), how is it that he supports the homosexual agenda and the murder of unborn babies?  Is he a fraud or a hypocrite?  Which one?

His public support for immorality to be sewn into our laws is in direct contention with that of the founding fathers.  The same founding fathers who wrote the Constitution. 

 

_____________________________________


97 posted on 11/12/2012 7:00:02 PM PST by CaptainKrunch (Freedom does not promise safety and security, freedom only promises freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: billys kid
Because he has enough smarts to know that with this current regime, your freedom and mine will disapear!

Freedom? Mine has been consistently disappearing throughout my lifetime, and I'm a great-grandpa six times over.

Whether through the major intrusions of the Federal Government, environmental regulations which say where and when I can cut a tree down, or the proliferation of agencies and regulations to mind my business ad infinitum, my freedom has been stripped, one thin shred at a time for "the public good", to "make us safe", and to fight a wide variety of boogeymen.

It isn't that I'm crossing borders illegally, poisoning rivers, or destroying America's youth with depravity or chemical dependence, but the measures to fight those things (generally ineffectively) impact my day-to-day life in ways perhaps unintended by the authors of the legislation.

Why do I say "perhaps unintended"?

Because government is FORCE. It is CONTROL, and the more government you have, the more CONTROL--yet the measures, the laws against the things the additional laws and agencies were supposed to control were there, and were adequate to address the situation without infringing on my fundamental Rights long ago, so the only impact increasing the power of Government has had is to infringe my Rights and gather more power to government(--at the expense of Our Liberty--for only those who are upright care what the law is, thieves, brigands, and others do not).

For example, The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1898 not only provided for the punishment of those polluting, the person who brought the charges was entitled to half of the fine.

If you fouled you water or your fields, you got sick or died for your troubles.

Keep in mind that I write from the perspective of someone whose ancestors were here long before there was a United States, when people suffered the natural consequences of their actions: Be slothful and starve, rob/rape your neighbors and get killed for it, abuse your family and live with their undying enmity and no 'social safety net' to mollycoddle you--ever.

You reaped what you had sowed.

I'd gladly take that over being dragged down by swarms of Lilliputian pencil-necks whose entire raison d'etre is to further their power at the expense of the productive by regulating obscure minutiae.

Yet there are those who, even now, see the monster from a different view. They suckle and nurture at the teats of the beast that devours the rest of us to provide their sustenance. And those whelps are voting on who is for dinner.

When there is nothing left, that wolf will consume its own get to survive, but for now, they grow fat at our expense.

Note that all the problems these agencies and laws were supposed to solve are still there.

Many problems are worse, and the opportunity for corruption only increases with the number of edicts and prohibitions and the scope thereof.

Every solution proffered diminishes our Liberty, but does nothing to solve the problem.

We have known there was an Illegal Immigration problem since Eisenhower had "Operation Wetback", and yet we have done nothing effective at the Federal Level since to stop it in over half a century.

We fund and provide incentive for the violation of our border by making the contraband (other than humans) which comes across valuable by prohibiting it.

(The humans we give food, housing, and medical care rivalling that of our citizens.) We've had laws controlling drugs since Prohibition, and the problem has only grown.

We even provide housing, EBT cards, and 'disability' payments for the addicted.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Keep pushing that button, maybe the results will be different next time.

98 posted on 11/12/2012 7:24:54 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Conservativegreatgrandma
Actually, Santorum had the ND primaries, Ron Paul was second. When Santorum dropped out, Ron Paul should have had the lion's share of delegates.

The GOP pulled some crap at the convention here, and when a slate which reflected the vote was proposed, they cut the power to the mikes and railroaded a committed Romney slate through.

Not another dime to those crooks.

99 posted on 11/12/2012 7:34:42 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
The more immoral a people are, the more the goverment needs to regulate behavior.

Like removing prayer form the public schools? Like mandating that someone cannot be fired because they are homosexual? That kind of Government?

Anarchy is self-limiting. No one proposes anarchy, rather a return of the Federal Government to within the bounds of Original Constitutional Intent, which would eliminate over half of the agencies therein overnight. And it certainly wouldn't extend to the Government the right to regulate how many gallons per flush or what kind of light bulbs I can buy--which makes us all more moral, How?.

Statist.

100 posted on 11/12/2012 7:42:28 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-152 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson