Ron Paul "Loons" at it again!!!

[Foxfyre]

I'm not so shocked as there is much that Ron Paul advocates that is really really good stuff and I have tried to be very clear on those issues in which I can agree with him.

It's just when he goes into his isolationist/proectionist mantra and advocates policy and actions that I think would be highly detrimental to U.S. security that I start backing off. Also his implied opinion that the U.S. invites terrorist attacks is a huge turnoff for me. Also, I think his recent diatribe against Bernanke and the Fed showed his understanding of basics economics related to monetary policy to be rather lacking, but that wouldn't be a deal maker for me as I presume he would surround himself with people who knew better.

 

[Annie]

It shows his character. The man who gets the least amount of special interest money in congress, is one of only a select few out of all of them to vote NO on those lobby and campaign finance bills. That tells me there must be something about the bills that benefits the congressmembers who voted YES. It's certainly not because he'd like to cover anything up. He's a principled man. Just one more example of how he votes exactly how he speaks.


Shocked in a GOOD way? Because if so, it just goes to show that you ought to do more homework on him. And I mean that in a respectful way Kath, I promise.

Not at all. Contrarily, if he was what he claims to be, what Shogun posted is very disturbing:

* Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
* Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination. (Mar 2007)
* Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
* Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
* Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004)
* Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
* Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
* Limit federal power, per the 10th Amendment. (Dec 2000)
* Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)I'm unsure of RPs stance on this

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I wonder how it would shake out if recipients of any form of government charity, courtesy of us, would have to pass a drug test to get it?

I suppose Mr. Paul might object to that though. What do you think?

Ideally, he wants to abolish government charity alltogether, perhaps over a period of a few years, but abolish it nonetheless.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ideally, he wants to abolish government charity alltogether, perhaps over a period of a few years, but abolish it nonetheless.

Well my libertarian soul can't say he is wrong about that. I think because of the unwise past policies over many years, it may require many years to phase out the entitlement programs lest we serously violate our contracts with millions of Americans. But we certainly would be wise to start now implementing policies that start shifting the power back to the people and make it possible to correct the problems.

 

[Detmurds]

Fact of the matter is,...Ron Paul will only screw over the real Republicans in the end. He is a fool!

 

[eots]

Fact of the matter is,...Ron Paul will only screw over the real Republicans in the end. He is a fool!

and by real Republicans you mean the neo-con cfr leftist that have taken over the party