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 think Ronald Reagan would have killed a lot more Islamists than George Bush has by now. But compared to Ron Paul, George Bush is Lincoln. Ron Paul wouldn't defend the country if the Islamists were marching down Pennsylvania Avenue.
The one thing Ron Paul doesn't support is our troops in harms way.M
His vote (with the Democrats) on the "non-binding resolution" was a slap in the face for the troops and very encouraging to the enemy.
Do you actually favor the resolution....or just the turn-coat who aided and abetted the bad guys?
Ron Paul has the same position on national security as Hillary Clinton. No one who calls themselves a conservative could vote for him.
In addition, I am in regular contact with the Campaign and will be passing along info regarding the State Campaign chairs you can contact as soon as they become available.
Which convicted terrorists from the Embassy bombings are currently serving in the Iraqi Parliament or Administration?
Just list their names, their government position, and the charges they've been convicted of.
Thanks in advance.
You are suffering from a liberal kool-aid overdose.
Cutless coward=politicians. Ron Paul is a man of principle, not a politician, and thus the opposite of a gutless coward.
Ron Paul is truly a decent man. However, I strongly disagree with him on his Iraq vote. I realize that a candidate cannot give you everything that I want, but -to me- he just made a mistake on the most important issue of our time.
See #36, and answer the question: Yes, or No?
Ron Paul is a terrorist-appeasing zero.
Reagan was right to pull out of Lebannon. If we had stayed in that mess, the marines would still be fighting in a futile nation-building effort to bring "democracy" to the Shi'ite masses of Lebannon.
Your question is based on a false premise.
How about the real question:
Now that Saddam Hussein is DEAD: do you believe the Federal Government should:
(A) abandon those people of Iraq who put their trust in the USA (e.g., the Kurds) and our promises of support, such that no other people would EVER trust the USA again and (B) surrrender the people and oilfields of Iraq to the terrorists state of Iran, so as to help Iran dominate the Middle East, have more money to build nuclear weapons, and create an unstable venue and a bunch of desperate people for terrorists to exploit who will eventually come to the USA and kill us?
Yes, or No?
You are out of your mind!
Apparently your dictionary does not contain separate entries for "corrupt" and "corruptible."
Unfortunately for Ron Paul. I saw his speech last week. I am with you Patrick1.
YES, or NO? It is a simple question. What is your answer?
Just like Hannity and Rush who supported similar action during the Kosovo war right? It looks like you're going to have to string up some of your friends on the gallows too!
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.