Posted on 12/22/2011 12:33:42 PM PST by Billlknowles
Thanks to glowing commentary from Ron Paul suppporters I have been called a coward, a traitor, a neocon, a nazi, that I'm sick and a 'demeanor' of the modern day Thomas Jefferson all because I said what a lot of Republicans are thinking but won't say: Ron Paul is a Libertarian and not a Republican. (For the record, with due respect to the Congressman, Ron Paul couldn't hold Thomas Jefferson's quill pen.)
Congressman Paul turned his back on the GOP in 1987 and resigned. Instead of trying to fix the problems that he cites in his resignation, he bolts and runs. He then ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988.
Dr. Paul ran for Congress again in 1996, but instead of running as a Libertarian, chose to run as a Republican. (More about this race in a little bit....)
(Excerpt) Read more at wearepolitics.com ...
he’s Frank Perdue’s long lost brother
Ahem, how about your crazy uncle at Thanksgiving?
I agree with him on some things, but he sounds like an isolationist, and does a good job of blaming America.
Don’t agree with that. Don’t like it.
If you’re asking if Dr. Paul is a tax raising, big spending, spineless, wanna be Democrat, no he is not a Republican.
He is obviously a Libertarian. Paul remains in the GOP because he realizes the futility of third parties, and he gets vastly more attention at GOP debates, forums, townhalls, and straw polls, then he would ever receive at similar Libertarian Party events.
RuPaul is for RuPaul, and no one and nothing else.
He is somewhere a LaRouchian and a Pat Paulsen.
Is it possible to be both a Republican and a libertarian (note the small “L”)? Or does being a Republican mean that the desired size of government and level of taxation be larger than what libertarians (again, note the small “L”) propose?
He’s neither. He’s a reactionary who thinks he can simply stuff the genie back in the bottle and return the USA to 1895 if he huffs and a puffs hard enough.
No it comes he is a complete failure as a businessman. He claims that his newsletters printed things he totally disagreed with, and continued to do so. Keep in mind, this was a small newsletter than had a few workers, at most. If he can't even manager a small newsletter competently, how could he manage to run this country??
To top it all off, when his failure as a businessman was exposed, he didn't own up and take responsibility, he is full of excuses and wants to be bailed out like every other nanny state moron. Why is he better than irresponsible unions or government agencies? He had the same failures in a much smaller venue. His excuses were no different than Clinton or Obama's.
How can anyone argue anymore that he could lead this country, when he failed to run his Howard Stern-newsletter? He's just another government leach who knows nothing of what actual Americans face or what it's like to run a real business.
At the end of the day, reputation aside, Ron Paul isn't that far from Obama. They are both failed community organizers, with socialist tendencies.
He’s a Nutjobian
1st of all, he’s a Nut.
After that, he’s an isolationist.
Republican? No.
Libertarian? Maybe.
I can think of reasons, but none of them are good.
(Excerpt)
He may be a kook but at least he isn't a blogpimp.
I prefer Lunatarian.
Paul is a kook, fringe idiot.
He is a “Blame America First” Libertarian!~
He’s a Jefferson/Jacksonian Democrat, not a Lincoln Republican.
Most Freepers wouldn’t recognize their ideas in the 1860 platform of Abraham Lincoln, either, which was hugely in favor of a federal government subsidized railroad.
Ron Paul is a visitor from space.
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.