Skip to comments.Ron Paul, the Real Republican? (Announcing the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
Posted on 02/20/2007 8:59:49 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Ron Paul, the Real Republican?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
By Radley Balko
When you read about a vote in Congress that goes something like 412-1, odds are pretty good that the sole "nay" came from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. He so consistently votes against widely popular bills, in fact, that the Washington Post recently gave him the moniker "Congressman 'No.'"
Paul isn't a reflexive contrarian--he doesn't oppose just to oppose. Rather, he has a core set of principles that guide him. They happen to be the same principles envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution: limited government, federalism, free trade and commerce -- with a premium on peace.
When most members of Congress see a bill for the first time, they immediately judge the bill on its merits, or if you're more cynical, they determine what the political interests that support them will think of it, or how it might benefit their constituents.
For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly.
This hasn't won him many friends in Congress, or, for that matter, his own party. It hasn't won him influential committee assignments or powerful chairmanships, either. Those are generally handed out to the party animals who vote as they're told. An incorruptible man of principle in a corrupt body almost utterly devoid of principle, Paul is often a caucus of one.
Paul recently announced his intentions to run for president in 2008. For the few of us who still care about limited government, individual rights, and a sensible foreign policy, Paul's candidacy is terrific news....Continue reading
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I can't, and won't.
Dirtboy, I've respected your posts for a long time. One question: Now that Saddam Hussein is DEAD, do you believe that the Federal Government should spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American Lives to provide military and financial support to an Iraqi Government which is dominated by Islamic Terrorist Parties who attacked our Embassies and murdered hundreds of United States Marines in cold blood? Yes, or No?
The Libertarian Party opposes all restrictions on immigration. Why was he the Libertarian nominee for president if he was against open borders?
Exactly. I don't mind if he runs, I just hope he doesn't run for his House Seat at the same time so we can get rid of him.
It's frankly amazing to me how:
"Continuing to provide Military and Financial support to an Iraqi Government which is dominated by Islamic Terrorists who attacked our Embassies and murdered hundreds of US Marines" is something which:
Cui bono. And the NYT has been thoroughly discredited on its Iraq reporting. This is not hard to understand, because wars sell papers.
Iraq had no enriched uranium.
Because he is resoundingly against Big Government across the board.
Ron Paul is also 100% Pro-Life, also; but the generally pro-abortion Libertarians supported him anyway because he is just so tremendously anti-Socialist.
Also, a vote by Congress to authorize military force is equivalent to a declaration of war as far as I'm concerned.
To be frank, your premise is bull crap.
"Iraq had no enriched uranium."
Most practical people would agree with you. I do. But there are those who use such nuances to explain votes then things don't go there way.
Can't parse that.
Iran won't fall into chaos. It is a cohesive nation whose people identify strongly as Iranian. Again, the Bush administration is relying on tiny dissident groups who come here so we'll pay them to tell us what we want to hear. If they enjoyed popular support they'd be in Iran, not here.
The price of oil, btw, will skyrocket. And unless you're willing to bomb the place into glass (and we aren't), all the bombs and planes in the world won't hold territory.
Yes. If we leave Iraq, we will have to go back to a far worse situation later. Imagine al Qaeda with oil revenues.
When Ron had the chance to vote for the Iraq War Resolution, he voted "no." When Ron had the chance to vote for the troops and the surge to win in Iraq, he voted "no." He is a coward and not worthy to shine the boots of our brave troops.
Read that article more carefully. The US removed the same slop the IAEA had already identified. Nothing even approaching weapons grade.
Along with a bunch of "radioactive sources" available at your local hospital too.
As opposed to Al Dawa and SCIRI with oil revenues? These people have attacked our Embassies and murdered hundreds of US Marines; what makes them Angels?
They're all rabid dogs as far as I'm concerned. But I respect your polite disagreement and wish you well.
Can't parse that.