Posted on 10/09/2007 7:06:32 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
You do realize that that is another example of Paul's complete lunacy?
That would require a Federal deficit of $1,095,000,000,000,000 annually JUST financed by "foreigners" Like most things Paul says, it comes from some cloud cuckoo fantasy land that only Paul lives in.
You post the same thing on every single thread. Has anyone pointed out to you, the other candidates don’t offer anything of any substance. I would offer you the same challenge with your candidate.
Yes we’re angry - at Bush, Paul, Perry, Hutchison, the Houston Mayor, and too many others to name. And we’re frightened and we feel abandoned.
Can you blame him? The GOP has always treated him like dirt, even going so far as supporting the Democrat candidates in his Congressional races.
There's no need to get mad at Paul. The GOP has completely abandoned its traditional conservative roots. All Paul is doing is just pointing it out, and the party elites get mad at him for doing so. There are Republicans right now who are planning on joining with the Dems on SCHIP to override the President's veto. Why?
Paul owes the GOP nothing. Even if he did endorse the nominee, they probably won't let him (or Tancredo) speak at the convention, but you can bet that pro-abortionist POS Rudy will be there lisping at the podium and invoking 9/11 every other sentence. He's already brought new voters into the GOP and said he won't run as a 3rd party candidate, so you should appreciate him for that.
Give me a break. So stuff like supporting the 2nd Amendment and limiting gov't and abolishing the IRS is embarrassing?
Do you realize that Paul is making history here? I bet you any money that in the next two elections, you're going to see dozens of conservative-libertarians running in the GOP for offices because they were motivated by Paul. Paul in the long-run is making the GOP stronger and more distinctive from the Dems, but yet there are those who refuse to change because they want to protect their little status-quo.
That may be why you don’t like him but that’s not why the GOP Elite doesn’t. He doesn’t tow the party line on things like new entitlement programs and huge amounts of congressional pork and as such is generally discarded by the Republican Elite.
He’ll make a good Constitutional point, then use it to some retarded end. Doesn’t fly real well IMO.
When he talks about the war I hear Democrat talking points and rants you can read at DU.
I think he sounds like a Democrat in these debates and I am sure he has been doing this CACA on the job. That would be why they do not like him IMO.
Paul has been out of favor with the GOP Elite long before Iraq II was even an issue. I agree that his POV on Iraq is retarded but on every other issue his view is 100% against the Democrats.
Good for Ron Paul. I agree with him on this.
An income tax implies that what you earn belongs to the government.
Notcie, BTW, that it’s not a wealth tax. Why, if liberals have been in charge? Because elitist liberals want to impose a heavy burden on us to keep us from getting where they are.
Iraq is not the holy grail of being a Republican regardless of what you think. And like my other post I just said, the GOP Elite did not like him long before we went into Iraq in 2003 or before 9-11. Can you find ANYTHING else besides Iraq that he agrees with the Democrats on?
Prior to 9-11 the libertarian types were all for open borders, drugs and any other number of dumb things like prostitution and so forth.
Never heard him until these debates and I was stunned in a bad way.
I’m going, have a good night.
How does Paul intend to fund the military, among a few other things on the federal level that need to be funded? Following his ideas to the extreme leaves us in a place where we are just as well to dissolve the United States and just have 50 individual countries. I have a pretty strong libertarian streak, but there is a function for governance on a federal level, but it should be as minimal as possible.
You are confusing the LP with most libertarians (whom are in the Republican party). Being against drug laws, etc is still part of a libertarian but a rather small one. Until Alcohol is outlawed I’ll call people like you hypocrites on that all day long (and be correct—For the record alcohol is the only drug I use—yes it is a drug). The Republican Liberty Caucus NEVER talked about legalizing drugs before 9-11 so I’m not sure where you are getting that idea anyway.
I’d imagine tariffs as per the Constitution (and was the case before the 16th amendment) but I would also like to see that as well.
Paul-Kucinich ‘08.
Well, give him this much credit, at least: he's finally stumbled across another code phrase for us other than that increasingly shopworn "neocons" bugaboo. ;)
Would you support Ron Paul if he won the GOP nomination?
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.