Posted on 02/20/2010 2:42:51 PM PST by onyx
Hear, hear! See my tagline...
We losing the W.O.T. ——> WAR ON TARP
He is very, very, very pro-life.
And unlike most Republicans, he has actually proposed and actively fought for pro-life legislation.
He will get his customary .07% of the electorate again.
Quack.
All the people who didn’t vote boo’d? Where were they when the voting was happening?
I'm not saying she isn;t popular, because she obviously is. I have no doubt that here support is deep among conservatives...but I suspect her support as a candidate isn't wide outside of that group.
Alaska electoral politics isn;t evidence that she is electable on a national level. 2006 was a good year no doubt for Palin even as a Republican, just as it was generally a bad year for incumbents. Susan Collins won reelection to a third term in 2008 by over 10%, defeating a dem congressman in a state that went for Obama by a wide margin. Despite all that, I wouldn't use Collins victory in Maine as an indication of anything just as I wouldn't use Palin’s victory in Alaska as anything.
Would I love it if Palin was to prove me wrong...absolutely. Am I ready to say that she is our only or best hope of actually winning...absolutely not.
I couldn’t agree more. I don’t know anybody who is more right-on-the-money, even when it makes him look like a kook, than Dr. Paul. But, of course, a lot of the wise men in history were thought of as kooks (Noah when building a ship when it had probably never rained on Earth before; Moses when he had to tell the Supreme Ruler of all of their civilization that he was going to take him and his army on via Jehovah if he didn’t free the slaves he had; Isaac when he prophesied a Messiah; General Washington when he led a revolution that he was embarrassingly losing from the start; most of the Renaissance scientists were rejected until well after their deaths and they were found to be correct the whole time; heck, Glenn Beck was called a doomsdayer when, during the very end of Bush’s term, he stated a giant recession was on the horizon due to all of Bush’s artificial stimulating of the economy while spending like drunken Democrats). Sometimes, we just don’t know what we have until it’s gone. Hopefully this won’t be the case with Dr. Paul.
No, Ron Paul is "personally opposed" to abortion.
He is opposed to Roe v. Wade, but he thinks the states should be able to decide for themselves.
The idea that states should be allowed to decide whether or not the slaughter of babies should be allowed IS NOT pro-life, it is pro-choice at best.
Yet you slam the politician who has done more to protect those rights with words and action than any other politician I've ever known (all GOP'ers use words, but little live by their word).
From “On the Issues”
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
As we can see, his voting record is a bit inconsistent.
No it wasn't. If anyone is to get credit for that, it would be Rick Santelli.
The Paul acolytes are showing up at Tea Party events with their pamphlets about trutherism and other such moonbattery and trying to hijack an excellent movement.
They are falsely taking credit for starting the movement. But the Tea Party movement is about true conservatism, not moonbatty libertarianism.
Imho, Ron Paul is a self-serving egomaniac.
I have come to think pledging to the flag isn’t direct enough. That’s where the tagline comes from.
Ron Paul has said a lot of great things on taxation and liberty yet he has said a lot of weird things too. That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t get a lot of conservative ears on some issues, he did and does sometimes (auditing the fed).
I just don’t think he should be President any more than Ludwig Von Mises should have been President. Hopping from the Libertarian Party to the GOP to become a Congressman was fine, people can live with that. Becoming President is a totally different thing.
Trying to frame himself as leader of the TEA party movement is going to turn off a lot of people. The TEA party movement has no leader. They share a lot of the same beliefs but not all of them.
I have been one of the FReepers who has praised Ron Paul in the past and I likely will appreciate his NO votes this year as well.
As for judging Ron Paul by his followers, I try not to, but people are known by many things, including the company they keep. That cannot be helped.
Hey, I don’t like Lew Rockwell but when he writes on economics I usually agree with him, when he mentions politics or foreign affairs I think he has lost his mind.
What I think government should be:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2454700/posts
You will probably agree with a lot of it.
Where in the Constitution does it state that the Federal Government has the right to usurp the State outside of the 10'th Amendments limitations? You see, that's the slippery slope. Use big federal government to stop one thing we don't like (abortion), but cry foul when the left uses it to usurp a state's decision on something they don't like. Big government is all bad for everybody. It's most certainly a state's decision. In fact, if you look at the founders' intent, and until the 14'th Amendment was enacted (never truly ratified) after the civil war, the Constitution was an agreement between the states and then the individual states' constitutions were between the states and the people. The Bill of Rights (and the Constitution as a whole) was an agreement between the states that none would use the confederacy to restrict those rights amongst the people of each others states. However, the Bill of Rights NEVER was intended to place bans on the people of the states; the Bill of Rights and the Constitution was to place bans on the confederacy (or, now the "Federal Government") as a treaty of sorts. Therefore, the federal government has no right - nor should it - to allow or disallow abortion, it's completely a state by state issue. In fact, if it had been left to the states as Constitutionally mandated, we would have saved millions upon millions of innocent babies by now. But since the left used the federal government to usurp state's rights (as you now propose), state's were left unconstitutionally helpless to stop the slaughter.
I’ll will conceed and say Rick was the spark.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments make it absolutely clear that the states CANNOT make ANY LAWS that deprive a person of life without due process.
Do you believe that an individual state should be allowed to pass a law legalizing murder?
***********************
For the record, I do not. There are some crimes that deserve and even require a federal interest.
Yet this is EXACTLY what many libertarians thinks the Constitution allows.
Well, I am no libertarian.
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.