Principled Ron Paul challenges GOP orthodoxy

Capital Times ^ | 5-12-11 | John Nichols

[Chickensoup]

I dont agree with all of what Ron Paul says or stands for. but I do agree with his finacial and forign policy ideas.

Bring our troops all home, secure our borders, mind our own business, pay our debts and eliminate regulation.

Sounds good to me.

[rob777]

What is not practical is saying that this nation is so broke that we have to charge vets for their medical care and gut medicare and social security, raise taxes at the same time we are borrowing money from the red chinese and sending it overseas in the form of “aid.” THAT is not practical nor is it intelligent.


Amen!

[truthfreedom]

People here who bother to post anti Ron Paul stuff on Ron Paul threads either don’t understand the difference between Federal and State Law, or they’re intentionally ignoring that very clear difference.

They aren’t tea partiers, they do not believe in Limited Constitutional Government.

Tea Partiers argue that the Federal Government does many things that the Constitution does not explicitly say they can do, and the tea partiers want them to stop.

The Anti Ron Paul people do not seem to have any real problems with the Federal Government doing too much. They’d prefer Big Government in the areas that they want Big Government and they might want less in other areas that they’d prefer to see less.

Democrats know this, and never tire of pointing out the many many cases of Big Government that Republicans support.

We’re against the “nanny state” but the DEA is fine, say Big Government Republicans. And Democrats point and laugh at us, and moderates, undecided voters, Independents, understand what they’re saying.

[rob777]

"Why do you feel the need to treat our ally as if it possesses neither the ability nor the will to defend itself?"


I think that treating Israel more as a partner in the WOT than a dependent child would actually strengthen her ability to defend herself. We still could share intelligence and military technology even if we did not continue aid. Israel's economy is strong enough now that it does not need our aid. That aid comes with pressure to follow our lead in the foreign policy arena, which sometimes actually hinders Israel's ability to secure its own security interests.

[Grunthor]

I do not support Ron Paul being elected to anything but I do support fedzilla being returned to it’s Constitutional bounds.

[truthfreedom]

Ron Paul does not a popular foreign policy with freepers. I’m not going to argue that.

It could be argued that historically, Republicans, Conservatives were always the ones arguing against foreign policy adventures, but most here are either the newer “conservatives” who got tired of Trotsky, and thought that it would be best for both parties to agree to war all the time.

Or, they’re people who have bought that argument and are either too young to remember that Republicans were always less interventionist than the Democrats, or they’re old, but have forgotten that.

Most of the other attacks on Ron Paul are typically distortions or outright lies.

The most honest attacks on Ron Paul are simply honest attacks on Conservativism.

We have too many people completely dependent on the Federal Government that if we were completely dismantle it, the consequences would not be pretty.

The counter argument to that is simply to argue that it wouldn’t happen, even if Ron Paul was elected.

Ron Reagan wanted cuts, big cuts the way Ron Paul does, and Ron Reagan tried, but it didn’t happen as great as the real Conservatives wanted. Because you can win in a landslide, but you still have to deal with the Dems and the RINOs.

I trust Ron Paul more than anyone to make the cuts. If anyone could at least keep the FedGov from growing, it’d be Ron Paul.

He really wants so much less Fed Gov than anyone else.

[ScottinVA]

Paul is a pro-heroin surrender-monkey who blames America for terrorist attacks against her.

... who said in a recent interview he wouldn't have ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden... that we should've worked with the Pakistani government.

Wrong Paul... Wrong on foreign policy... Wrong on the fight against terrorism... Wrong for America.

[ScottinVA]

Most of the other attacks on Ron Paul are typically distortions or outright lies.

Care to defend that statement he made on killing bin Laden? He foolishly thinks we should've worked through the Pakistani government. Paul may be acceptable on some fiscal matters, but on foreign policy he'd be an unmitigated disaster.

[South40]

If RuPaul was president Osama bin Laden would still be alive.

Thankfully, his drug-addled supporters, while vocal, fall far short of mustering up enough support to make him a real threat.

[Chickensoup]

I agree.

I know that this is bizarre but a Trump Paul worldview might be interesting.

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

Did we get involved in a long, protracted war in the Sinai in ‘67? No? Why is that? Could it be because the Israeli military is the baddest of asses on the planet and can more than take care of themselves in a fight?

In 73 the Israelis were on the brink of losing and we had to airlift them military supplies to keep them from being overrun. They're hardly invincible.

[DangerZone]

Who’s the guy in the third pic with LRon?

[Gene Eric]

Be careful all ye whom mock the Paul of Texas. The Left is salivating at the idea of capturing his base...

[Gene Eric]

>> 4. Has joined former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., ... in raising all the right questions about the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance and abuses of civil liberties.

Feingold, big-ass hypocrite who, at the time, had no problem looking the other way while his team began the pillaging of our liberties.

[mnehring]

Adam Kokesh, military deserter and traitor.

[DangerZone]

If Paul really wanted to do some good he would switch parties and run against Zero in the Dem primary. He might be able to pull in enough votes to keep Dem voters voting in their own primaries and not screwing around with ours.

Seriously though, if there is no serious competitor for Obama next year and so many of our primaries remain open, conservatives are in for a major hosing. Say "hello" to the Republican nominee for president Mitt Romney.

[andyk]

Could you provide a quote of mine wherein I said RuPaul encourages the use of heroin?

Sure, no problem. You said:

Paul is a pro-heroin surrender-monkey who blames America for terrorist attacks against her.

Maybe I am not looking carefully, but I have not seen Paul campaigning to promote heroin use. However, he does believe that the federal government has no jurisdiction over such matters. When asked by detractors, their favorite question of whether he favors the legalization of heroin, he is required, by intellectual honesty, to say that the federal law making its use illegal is not constitutional.

I just personally think it's a stretch for you to imply that calling him "pro-heroin" is not the same as saying he encourages use of heroin. It seemed to be the gist of your phrasing.

It's hard to tell, so I'll ask: do you believe that the constitution gives congress the power to make the purchase or use of products, whether drugs or lightbulbs, illegal for citizens of the states?

Maybe Paul has said something different recently, but what I have seen in the past of him believes that drug laws should exist at the state level. I personally agree with that because it's the only place they're currently legal under supreme law. IMHO, of course.

[andyk]

Whether it is a good or bad idea, America is not ready for legalized heroin. It is hardly one our pressing issues at the moment and popular support for such a thing simply does not exist. Look, the potheads in California couldn't even get weed legalized - and that is in loopy CA.

I am not so concerned about whether it's good or bad that congress is violating the constitution - just that it's being violated. Unfortunately, even Scalia has disappointed on this one.

From what I've read of Paul, he has no problem with drug laws at the state level, where the power and jurisdiction over individuals exists. Granted, I think he would oppose it in his own state, but he would admit that drug laws in other states were none of his business.

That's certainly a perspective I can appreciate.

[andyk]

So someone who wanted to legalize burglary should not be counted as ‘pro-burglar’?

I'm sorry, but it's possible to use drugs without harming another. It is absolutely impossible to burgle without harming another. You can't compare the two.

However, this is not about heroin, it's about the federal government overstepping its bounds and passing unconstitutional laws.

There is no difference between this, and the fact that incandescent bulbs are soon to be banned from manufacture, inasmuch as the power that congress is usurping in order to make the laws is considered. It's about the loss of liberty.

I would be surprised if heroin were legal according to your state laws, so why the worry?

[andyk]

They aren’t tea partiers, they do not believe in Limited Constitutional Government.

Word.