Congressman Ron Paul's TV Gaffe

AllSouthwest News Service ^ | 4/28/02 | Congressman Ron Paul

[Protagoras]

Anyone know what his re-election chances are?

It's obvious that you would love to see him defeated. Maybe you could send a little money to his Democratic opponent.

[Protagoras]

Borderless one world hegemony is the Libertarian dream.

A forum where people wouldn't call you for being a liar on subjects like this is your dream.

[Protagoras]

The only national personality about whom Limbaugh listeners can be certain they'll hear is -- well -- Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh is a RBA. (Republican before American)

I REALLY wish Rush would take more vacations so we could hear more from Walter Williams.

Williams is a libertarian, like Ron Paul.

[asneditor]

BUMP FOR AMERICAN FREEDOM AND LIBERTY

[asneditor]

I second that!

[asneditor]

His chances for re-election are excellent. He hs a relatively unknown democrat challenger. On the other hand the big unions say they will pour multi-millions into the campaign against Ron so he will need all the help he can get. Visit his website at http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com

[Timesink]

Didn't see him. Which day was this?

It was 955 days ago. September 17, 1999.

[Anthem]

Borderless one world hegemony is the Libertarian dream.

Open immigration (not borderlessness) allow for "competing governments" and have nothing to do with "one world hegemony". Quite the opposite, it allows for people to choose which government they want to live with rather than hegemonic attempts to control other governments.

[RGSpincich]

It was 955 days ago. September 17, 1999.

Thanks. Is he still alive?

[outlawcam]

Hey Laz... I noticed you deleted a section out of the original paragraph. You quoted the paragraph as, "If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no Nafta, Gatt, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited," without the use of elipses. Was this an oversight or was there some other reason?

However, in fact, the paragraph in question states "If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no Nafta, Gatt, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited. (Emphasis added)

If you could clarify I would be greatly appreciative.

[Redbob]

There's one thing for certain: Although he's also a physician, Michael Burgess is no Ron Paul!

(PS: Come November, Burgess will be the one to replace Dick Armey in Washington)

[Mikey]

Ron Paul and Alan Keyes, either one for pres, either one for vice pres. Either way, America wins.

[Lancey Howard]

BUMP, just for the heck of it.

[KDD]

A little reminder.

[tpanther]

Essentially if we stuck to the Constitution as written as interpreted by Ron Paul, we’d HAVE no Constitution.

I agrre with so much about the UN etc. but it’s just so naive to the point he’s not taken seriously on his foreign policy ideas.