Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rep. Ron Paul: Running to Win in 2008 (Announcing the GRPPL -- Great Ron Paul Ping List)
Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee ^ | February 3, 2007 | Orthodox Presbyterian

Posted on 02/03/2007 12:49:38 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian

Rep. Ron Paul: Running to Win in 2008
Dave Eberhart
Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2007 WASHINGTON -- Libertarians and conservatives alike, frustrated by their early options among the so-called 2008 front-runners, may turn to a familiar face in pursuit of the White House: Rep. Ron Paul.

Paul, R-Texas, has been a fervent advocate of limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He's now considering taking his no-nonsense show on the road in an under-the-radar run for the White House... (full article at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/30/151713.shtml?s=po)


ANNOUNCING
The formation of the Great Ron Paul Ping List (GRPPL)
on Free Republic's Religion Forum

Well, it's (very nearly) official: the Honorable Rep. Ron Paul, Texas 14th District, is running for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States. I don't mind saying that this news has me more excited about National electoral politics than I have been in a long, long time. We are past due for a 100% Pro-Life, Pro-Second Amendment, Pro-Capitalism, Pro-Liberty die-hard Constitutionalist Christian in the White House!!

Over the last few days, I have been speaking with a delightful Calvinist Christian political operative: Presbyterian Church in America member Penny Langford-Freeman, Ron Paul's own Political Director. She is enthusiastic about the prospect that Presbyterian and Reformed Christians and others can develop a powerful base of support for Ron Paul's candidacy by hitting the ground EARLY, leveraging our internet resources, our elbow-grease and our shoe-leather from the grass-roots up to overcome the financial advantages enjoyed by major GOP liberals like Giuliani and McCain. We need to get our Conservative Christian friends and neighbors registered Republican and committed to vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries, and then get them to get their friends and neighbors registered and voting for Ron, every day for the next 11 months until Iowa and New Hampshire... and then take the GOP Primaries by storm in 2008, swarming out of the shadows like the guerilla army of Huguenot Calvinist "Swamp Fox" Francis Marion in the Revolutionary War.

Towards that end, I have set up a new Email account for coordinating FreeRepublic support for Ron Paul's candidacy. I will be working with Ron Paul's campaign staff to help direct interested FreeRepublic Conservative Christians in their efforts to support Dr. Paul; while I will be working most closely with my own Presbyterian and Reformed FReeper Friends (due simply to long familiarity and camaraderie), Christians from ALL theological traditions are most welcome!

If interested, please send your Name, State of Residence, and Email Address (contact phone number and church membership are helpful but not required) to:

I will be accepting Emails from interested parties and then submitting the list en masse to Ron Paul's political director later next week. You will be placed on Ron Paul's campaign email list and put in contact with your State campaign organizers as soon as possible. In addition, any suggestions you can offer regarding campaign literature, strategy, and marketing will be appreciated!


TOPICS: Activism; Current Events; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: ahahahahah; cutnrun; doa; notsogreat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 next last
For Ron Paul, and the Republic!

Stephen Henkel, "OrthodoxPresbyterian"
Oklahoma
ronpaulcalvinist@sbcglobal.net

1 posted on 02/03/2007 12:49:43 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush; Dr. Eckleburg; Alex Murphy; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; RnMomof7; Gamecock; ...
For Ron Paul, and the Republic!

Stephen Henkel, "OrthodoxPresbyterian"
Oklahoma
ronpaulcalvinist@sbcglobal.net

2 posted on 02/03/2007 12:50:39 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

BTTT


3 posted on 02/03/2007 12:50:58 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Forgot your tagline? Click here to have it resent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

.


4 posted on 02/03/2007 12:52:02 PM PST by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Okay, here's a "GRPPL" List you can be on. :-)

In fact, you'd be much appreciated.

Best, OP

5 posted on 02/03/2007 12:52:09 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: the_doc; MarMema

FYI


6 posted on 02/03/2007 1:03:24 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

What? Haven't you heard?

I'm an official "almost" arrivee!

:>)

With Paul, as with others (except John McCain whom I reject out of hand), I will look at their positions and vote accordingly in both primary and general.

I'm tilted toward Duncan Hunter and Newt Gingrich at this moment, but Newt's skeletons probably make him unelectable. I've not heard Hunter in front of a live mike, yet, so the jury's still out on him.

Paul is virtually the same, although I don't like isolationism, the one position he has that I find near-sighted. (On the other hand, I don't appreciate willy-nilly meddlesomeness, either.)


7 posted on 02/03/2007 1:44:03 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Paul is virtually the same, although I don't like isolationism, the one position he has that I find near-sighted.

Could you further define his position here for me?

Not attempting to be antagonistic....just curious about your opinion of Ron. I haven't followed his career for a few years.

8 posted on 02/03/2007 2:08:43 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

It's been some months, and I didn't save the links, but I did look up Paul's positions on a number of issues. I can't even recall where, but it was clear that he was a classic isolationist. He has every right to be, if he wants, but I think that the best defense is a good offense.

As Barney Fife would say, "Nip it...Nip it in the bud. I'm all for bud-nippin'!"

I'd start with ACU's position points on congressman.


9 posted on 02/03/2007 2:23:21 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul356.html

The above is Paul in his own words. That way you'll have it uncolored by my opinions.

He calls himself "non-interventionist" rather than "isolationist." He has every right to describe himself. However, that he is answering this is evidence that others see his position as isolationist, and that means I'm not the Lone Ranger on this.


10 posted on 02/03/2007 2:27:15 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The above is Paul in his own words.

Yeah....thanks. I believe he is more of a Libertarian than Republican....and it comes across in his statement. Although.... I do enjoy hearing someone in the Republican party acting Constitutional from time to time. It's a rarity nowadays. Unfortunately, it also makes them unelectable.

11 posted on 02/03/2007 2:42:39 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
I think Duncan Hunter gives you everything you're looking for. He is a more well-rounded candidate, has more credibility, can get funding from the defense industry, and appears to have more momentum. Why don't we unite around ONE conservative? If you could make a good case that Ron Paul has a better shot at the nomination than Duncan (both are long shots as of 2/3/2007) you should share that. Otherwise, please consider supporting Hunter. Consider:

Hunter introduces legislation to protect unborn

Hunter smacks down CNN on Wolf Blitzer

Hunter on borders: sponsored the very fence that is being extended 700 miles east.

Hunter's Reaganesque views on trade.

Hunter is the ONLY candidate talking about the threat from China

I think you'll like this gentleman! We need to get behind ONE conservative, or else we'll be looking at a Rudy nomination.

12 posted on 02/03/2007 2:44:48 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Diego1618
With Paul, as with others (except John McCain whom I reject out of hand), I will look at their positions and vote accordingly in both primary and general. I'm tilted toward Duncan Hunter and Newt Gingrich at this moment... Paul is virtually the same, although I don't like isolationism, the one position he has that I find near-sighted. (On the other hand, I don't appreciate willy-nilly meddlesomeness, either.)

The big problem I can see with Hunter -- other than the fact that I don't believe that the current Iraqi government, dominated as it is by the SCIRI and Al Dawa Parties who attacked our Embassies in 1979 and 1983 and killed 241 US Marines in 1983, is a gang of terrorist thugs who aren't worthy of our continued support -- is his abysmal 56% rating from the National Taxpayer's Union... which can't even be blamed on increased wartime spending, as Hunter's "Taxpayer Friendly" rating has been declining for years.

While I strongly support Hunter's stands opposing abortion and illegal immigration, I don't know how many years the Republic can stand nearly half-Trillion dollar Tax-Borrow-&-Spend budget deficits before we're bankrupt, and Hunter's one of the pork-barrel culprits... as bad as the GOP Congress has been on spending, Hunter's been even worse. His low Taxpayer-Friendly rating is actually bringing the average Republican score in the house down.

Naturally, I'd rather go with the fella who ties for the highest Taxpayer-Friendly score in the House... Rep. Ron Paul. :-)

13 posted on 02/03/2007 2:48:17 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom; Dr. Eckleburg
The big problem I can see with Hunter -- (other than the fact that I don't believe that the current Iraqi government, dominated as it is by the SCIRI and Al Dawa Parties who attacked our Embassies in 1979 and 1983 and killed 241 US Marines in 1983, is a gang of terrorist thugs who aren't worthy of our continued support) -- is his abysmal 56% rating from the National Taxpayer's Union... I don't know how many years the Republic can stand nearly half-Trillion dollar Tax-Borrow-&-Spend budget deficits before we're bankrupt, and Hunter's one of the pork-barrel culprits. As bad as the GOP Congress has been on spending, Hunter's been even worse. His low Taxpayer-Friendly rating is actually bringing the average Republican score in the house down.

I think you'll like this gentleman! We need to get behind ONE conservative, or else we'll be looking at a Rudy nomination.

Naturally, I'd rather go with the fella who ties for the highest Taxpayer-Friendly score in the House... Rep. Ron Paul. :-)

Besides, Ron Paul has been employing die-hard Calvinists in his top ranks for years; we're the "in crowd" in his office. It's time we Calvinists give back some love.

14 posted on 02/03/2007 2:52:45 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Correction... unlike 2004, in 2005 Ron Paul experienced a rare dip in his NTU rating -- he was rated only the second most "Taxpayer Friendly" Representative in the entire House.

However, Rep. Jeff Flake ain't running for Prez, so it's still Ron Paul all the way for me.

15 posted on 02/03/2007 2:57:10 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Diego1618
shot at the nomination

That and electability truly are considerations. In the primaries is the time to push for the guy who has the best conservative credentials who is most electable.

Thre are very few reasons that would make me desert the major party candidate opposing the Democrats in the general election.

Pro-life is one of those reasons.

16 posted on 02/03/2007 3:00:02 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
With Hunter you've got a man who will rebuild the military. Hunter opposed the troop increase and had an excellent alternative: redeploy Iraqi forces stationed in docile provinces to Baghdad and other hot spots.

Hunter is the only candidate who seems conscious to the China threat. I've already given money to his campaign, and back him 100% as the best CONSERVATIVE with a chance of winning both the primary and the general.

Still, what you've said about Ron Paul sounds quite attractive. Hunter has won in a few polls, most notably this one. Has Ron Paul shown any signs of momentum? What are his views on the military?

17 posted on 02/03/2007 3:01:50 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Pro-life is one of those reasons.

And that's a very real possibility this election cycle. Taxes I'm flexible on - protection of the innocent, no flexibility.

18 posted on 02/03/2007 3:07:12 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom; Dr. Eckleburg; xzins
We need to get behind ONE conservative, or else we'll be looking at a Rudy nomination.

Incidentally, Ron Paul substantially out-raised Hunter in Contributions in the 2006 cycle, garnered 97% of his money from Individual Contributions from all over the country rather than a few corporations in his own district (showing broad national fund-raising ability), had a couple hundred thousand dollars more cash on hand in his last report, and already has a nationwide network of political operatives dating from his 1988 Libertarian run and his national chairmanship of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Food for thought.

19 posted on 02/03/2007 3:08:58 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; Lexinom; Diego1618; Dr. Eckleburg

I'm open. I've not made up my mind.

I want to hear them.

Personally, I wish they were all required to come out with a LIVE personally taught slide show of one hour length without teleprompter on their major position and vision in the areas of: economics, foreign policy, social issues, etc.... Roughly 5 major areas that they get 20 minutes each on.

That would be far more beneficial to me than all those ignorant media-events falsely called "debates."

I'd like to see 1 of those to see how fast on their feet they were, and I'd like to see their major media nemeses get to hurl questions at them.


20 posted on 02/03/2007 3:15:03 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; Lexinom; Diego1618; Dr. Eckleburg

CORRECTION: Roughly 5 major areas that they get TWELVE minutes each on. (WAKE UP, SELF!)


21 posted on 02/03/2007 3:15:53 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom; xzins
Ron Paul is pro-National Defense and pro-SDI. He does believe that Congress should constitutionally Declare War before major overseas military actions commence.

He enjoys a Zero percent rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League.

22 posted on 02/03/2007 3:16:35 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; Lexinom

I believe the Constitution foresaw military operations short of war. At the time these were covered by "letters of marque and reprisal."

Privateers were ships licensed to prey on the vessels of other nations with whom we had a bone to pick.


23 posted on 02/03/2007 3:18:51 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; xzins; P-Marlowe
I know I'm in the minority here. I'm not enthusiastic about any of the announced candidates (Hunter included), but a few intrigue me.

Guiliani did do a lot of good in New York City. His quality of life anti-crime campaign made New York safe to walk in again. He was a very effective leader for the City - and the job of Mayor of New York is, in my own opinion, the job most similar to that of President in terms of scope and scale. My big concerns with Guiliani? His questionable judgment with respect to Bernard Kerik, a man who was as dirty as it gets.

Romney also intrigues me - particularly his background on fiscal issues, and his fairly strong (if somewhat recent) stances on social issues. My biggest concern is that I don't know what he'll do on the WOT or Iraq. I do not care that he is a Mormon. To quote Martin Luther, "I would rather be ruled by a wise [Muslim] than by a foolish Christian." The same applies, IMHO, to Mormon presidential candidates.

I can't imagine myself voting for any of the Democrats. Hillary would be their best choice, if I could discount her history as a Clinton (I can't) and her shameless pandering to the Moveon.Org segment of the party (I can't). Obama is an attractive candidate only insofar as he is a human Rorschach blot upon whom people project what they want to see.

24 posted on 02/03/2007 3:20:15 PM PST by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Lexinom
I believe the Constitution foresaw military operations short of war. At the time these were covered by "letters of marque and reprisal." Privateers were ships licensed to prey on the vessels of other nations with whom we had a bone to pick.

Yes, Ron Paul introduced the "Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001" back on October 11, 2001 (to "allow Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces") and "The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001" as additional tools in tracking and destroying terror cells.

25 posted on 02/03/2007 3:28:02 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; xzins; P-Marlowe
He enjoys a Zero percent rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League.

Unfortunately, Abortion is a non-issue. Even if we reconstituted the Supreme Court entirely with Alito and Roberts clones, the Supreme Court holds starae decisis so tightly that they will not overrule Roe v. Wade. Abortion will be legal as long as the Supreme Court subscribes to that philosophy.

The fight, therefore, must be ensuring that abortion is rare. A mixture of regulation and social pressures can accomplish what the Supreme Court never will.

26 posted on 02/03/2007 3:28:36 PM PST by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jude24; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Lexinom; Diego1618

I treat the primaries totally differently than I do the general election.

The primaries are for getting the guy closest to your perfect candidate to be the standard-bearer for your party.

If that fails, then in almost all cases you support the party. If I have a violent objection to the party candidate, then I have to ask myself if there is a line that the party nominee has crossed that makes it impossible for me to support him.

In terms of electability, I think Rudy's messy personal life will do him in; same with Gingrich. McCain's hatred of the conservative wing of the party will deny him the nomination. Massachusetts has a penchant for flip-floppers; and since Mormon flip-floppers are a really new catch for the American electorate, I think Romney will go the way of his Michigan daddy.


27 posted on 02/03/2007 3:28:38 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jude24
I know I'm in the minority here. I'm not enthusiastic about any of the announced candidates (Hunter included), but a few intrigue me.

Well, Ron Paul isn't yet officially "announced", so howzabout him?

28 posted on 02/03/2007 3:29:08 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Well, Ron Paul isn't yet officially "announced", so howzabout him?

He's way further to the right than I. I would be uncomfortable voting for him, certainly in a primary.

A Hillary v. Ron Paul or an Obama v. Ron Paul matchup would keep me awake at night.

29 posted on 02/03/2007 3:30:17 PM PST by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jude24
Even if we reconstituted the Supreme Court entirely with Alito and Roberts clones, the Supreme Court holds starae decisis so tightly that they will not overrule Roe v. Wade.

I think that's true of Roberts, but not Alito. I believe I recall remarks from Alito to exactly that effect -- regarding Scott and Plessy, for example.

30 posted on 02/03/2007 3:31:01 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; xzins
Either Paul or Hunter would be an excellent choice. I hate to sound like Der Schlickmeister, but I'll need to see which one runs the better campaign up close to the first primaries. It is self-defeating to send money to both, however.

Does Ron Paul have broad enough appeal to be able to win the general? Hunter could get crossover support from American manufacturing because of his strong (and Reaganesque) views on free, fair trade. That's a reason to have hope for him in the general, esp. against a far-left Stalinist like the two Dem frontrunners. Would Rep. Paul, with his conservative social stances, likewise be capable of pulling in votes from the center?

31 posted on 02/03/2007 3:31:23 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; P-Marlowe; xzins
I think that's true of Roberts

It's very true of Roberts. I don't know if you've noticed, but the decisions this term have been far less sweeping than the ones issued under the Warren Court or the Rehnquist Court. That's largely due to Robert's philosophy that the Supreme Court should not pontificate like law professors do, but somewhat more narrowly decide the issue at hand.

As far as I am concerned, that seems to be a breath of fresh air - and, from what I've heard, the Court seems to be functioning better this term. It will be interesting to keep an eye on this Court.

32 posted on 02/03/2007 3:34:44 PM PST by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Did anyone in the Federalist papers ever define the word "war?" Were there others in those early days who saw operations short of all-out societal war being legitimate objectives for our military forces?


33 posted on 02/03/2007 3:35:49 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The primaries are for getting the guy closest to your perfect candidate to be the standard-bearer for your party.

I haven't seen one in either party, so I'm stuck wondering whether I should even vote in a primary (a first for me!), and if so, for whom. I'm leaning Guiliani or Romney, but willing to listen for others who are somewhat moderate.

I'll pay more attention once the primaries get closer.

34 posted on 02/03/2007 3:36:40 PM PST by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xzins; OrthodoxPresbyterian
Did anyone in the Federalist papers ever define the word "war?" Were there others in those early days who saw operations short of all-out societal war being legitimate objectives for our military forces?

I know this is heresy around here, but why do we care how the Federalist papers defined "war"? It's fundamentally irrelevant how an agrarian, Colonial-era society defined "war," when crossing the Atlantic took weeks, not hours. In a modern, "world-is-flat" era, the definition of war in the 1790's is an anachronism neither required nor desirable to interpret the Constitution.

35 posted on 02/03/2007 3:38:54 PM PST by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jude24
Actually, Congress has the authority to end legal abortion without input from the SCOTUS, which is why Hunter introduced his legilation in 2003 - and reintroduced it a few days ago.

The approach to this issue needs to be balanced, both top-down (Govt. incl. SCOTUS, Congress, the new effort in SD) and bottom-up (crisis pregnancy center support, abstinence education, culture-of-life, and just show the darned procedure, already!). So I half-agree with you.

36 posted on 02/03/2007 3:41:03 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jude24

I care how they saw it, because I don't think the idea of limited military operations is new at all.

It never hurts to see history.


37 posted on 02/03/2007 3:43:53 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
Does Ron Paul have broad enough appeal to be able to win the general?... Would Rep. Paul, with his conservative social stances, likewise be capable of pulling in votes from the center?

I believe so.

Ron Paul's advocacy for State's Rights federalism on many social issues may make him more acceptable to the moderate center than politicians who claim that they will mandate social conservatism from Washington DC.

38 posted on 02/03/2007 3:49:47 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Gotta go. I'll be back; in the meantime, interested FReepers just send me an Email.

ronpaulcalvinist@sbcglobal.net

39 posted on 02/03/2007 3:51:27 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

No "pro-open borders" Republican candidate for President will ever have a serious chance for victory in '08, but Rep. Ron Paul can still bring up issues during the Republican primary season and during the Republican debates that otherwise wouldn't be brought up just by running for President.


40 posted on 02/03/2007 3:52:03 PM PST by johnthebaptistmoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Isn't Tancredo a Presbyterian ?


41 posted on 02/03/2007 7:18:52 PM PST by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn; Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; ...
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
42 posted on 02/03/2007 7:43:09 PM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; ears_to_hear
I've admired Ron Paul for years, supported his caucus, the Liberty Committee.

Ron Paul might bring the entire Libertarian voting bloc and even the Constitution Party on board. In open primaries and without a strong L candidate of their own, the L Party and the C Party might enter the Republican primary, helping Paul. I know of little that would bar them from doing so.

I was over on Slashdot recently. They had a thread on Hillary as the "Privacy Candidate" because that's her new ploy. I was shocked at the posts completely running her into the ground (Slashdot is a Left/liberal techie site with a small contingent of gunowners and conservatives). You could have knocked me over with a feather. Bush took some jabs and there were observations of how similar the Bushs and the Clintons are. What was striking were a couple of different groupings (around 10-20 posts each) out in the middle of it all, talking about how much they'd like Ron Paul to run, to debate the other GOP candidates. Hillary and Bush and McStain didn't fare well.

Slashdot: The Privacy Candidate

Amazing stuff. Ron Paul isn't as unknown as some people think. People who know him at all have generally liked and supported him for ten years or more. The support he has is solid and longterm. It could form a basis for grassroots organization. And with Harry Brown, the former Libertarian leader dead and the poor showing from the CP in 2004, Ron Paul would have a good chance to gather them as well.

The GOP has lost its vital libertarian wing over the years, preferring to be neocon statists and Friedmanesque servants of a corporate state, the American global empire. The GOP needs to return to its libertarian touchstones and avoid the libertine Giuliani. Despite McStain's libertarian Arizona background, he is far too compromised to attract real Libertarians.

It might be good to try to assemble a chart of Paul's positions on the major issues to use in forum postings, so people readily grasp his basic positions and votes in Congress.
43 posted on 02/03/2007 7:47:15 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Personally, I wish they were all required to come out with a LIVE personally taught slide show of one hour length without teleprompter on their major position and vision in the areas of: economics, foreign policy, social issues, etc.... Roughly 5 major areas that they get 20 minutes each on.

I would expect we'll see Paul's speeches and such via YouTube. It's going to be a big player in '08 and all the campaigns are gearing for it as we've read in other threads this year. But that works far more in favor of a candidate like Paul than it does the deep-pockets candidates from the two liberal parties.

2008 may be the first election where the Internet will make the difference, something that will be marked in the future in the way that Kennedy's election in 1960 made him the first "television president".

Hey, we conservatives really are the New Media guys, aren't we? Rush and Coulter are right about that.
44 posted on 02/03/2007 7:57:53 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
The GOP has lost its vital libertarian wing over the years, preferring to be neocon statists and Friedmanesque servants of a corporate state, the American global empire. The GOP needs to return to its libertarian touchstones and avoid the libertine Giuliani. Despite McStain's libertarian Arizona background, he is far too compromised to attract real Libertarians.

Please 'splain Lucy. I'm here to learn too.

GOP losing it's Libertarian wing...check (doesn't help when FReepers call them Liberaltarians)

Preferring to be neocon statists...check(I'll assume you are referring to the Iraq war/WWIV, where you can certainly make the case that Isolationism might work. These islomofascist barbarians will kill each other on their own. Much like the Cold War aka WWIII, minus those Battles in Vietnam and Korea, we just bided our time and waited for the failed ideology to collapse upon itself. Relax everyone, it's just a thought, maybe I'm wrong)

BUT, this is where I draw the line. If you disrespect "the Bing" and Milton Friedman, you better be prepared to put up your dukes. Corporate state???? Watcha talking bout Willis?

45 posted on 02/03/2007 8:04:51 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

add me please


46 posted on 02/03/2007 8:09:14 PM PST by zeugma (If the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg
I'm for Paul in the primaries so long as the conservative vote is not split to allow McC or RG. As he says “Get the US out of the UN & the UN out of the US”.

Please change should to must (:. Beginning at least as far back as Korea a whole host of traitors are not legally traitors because Congress shirked its duty to declare War: I’m not Fonda Jane, Ramsey Clark, & Tom Hayden come immediately to mind.

I suggest the meaning of words such as isolationist be well understood before used to describe a Presidential candidate.

I, like Taft & Buchanan, favor the (so-called) isolationism of our first President, & by far our greatest, George Washington; those who would not support any treaty that could involve us, by treaty, in a war; or to yield one word of our national sovereignty.

That, as a pejorative, is thrown around in political discourse as much as (so-called) hyper-Calvinism is charged in discussion/debate by Christians.

The only way for Congress to support the troops is to publicly repent their attacks, give advise & consent & argument behind the scene, remind the public that our form of governance is representative, not (as in polls) democratic. Vote 'em out next time around

I opposed going to (so-called) war before we were in it simply in respect of the advice of our first President all the while admitting that I might have been/ still be wrong. I also oppose the novel idea of preemptive war.

Having said that, once the shooting starts the nay saying stops & I/we trust that God is sovereign in all the affairs of men.

Good night, as in "It is well with my soul", all.

47 posted on 02/03/2007 8:14:08 PM PST by Dahlseide (TULIP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

What would seriously test a guy who wanted to be president? What would strip away the handlers, parties, writers, and make it possible to see the guy?

Put him in front of a slide show with no notes, no prompter, and no canned questions. Have him give a live presentation of what he wants to do to the nation.

I think we can learn a lot.


48 posted on 02/03/2007 8:18:18 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Thanks, OP. Please keep me on your ping list. Ron Paul is sounding more attractive as time goes on.

The military situation will be settled regardless of the party in power. No American President is going to cut and run when national interests are at stake as they are in Iraq.

But taxes are an issue that should awaken to action every sleeping Republican and brain-dead democrat. Taxes and forced unionism are crippling the country.
49 posted on 02/04/2007 1:46:44 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: johnthebaptistmoore; George W. Bush; Lexinom; fishtank
No "pro-open borders" Republican candidate for President will ever have a serious chance for victory in '08, but Rep. Ron Paul can still bring up issues during the Republican primary season and during the Republican debates that otherwise wouldn't be brought up just by running for President.

Ron Paul is "pro-open borders"?

(OP scratches head in confusion)...

Er... would you say that the following Votes are "Pro Open Borders"?

Because... um... Ron Paul voted "YES" on all those things.

Admittedly, it's always a bit of a shock when Ron Paul ever votes to increase Federal spending on, well, anything; but on this issue, the only difference between his votes and those of Tancredo is that Ron Paul voted against the National ID Card.

FWIW, I happen to agree with Ron Paul on this, and respectfully disagree with Tancredo -- issuing National ID Cards is just too Orwellian a power to grant the Federal Government for the alleged purpose of "stopping illegal immigration", when what the Feds should be doing is stopping illegals at the border... which Ron Paul supports.

50 posted on 02/04/2007 3:58:47 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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