Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ron Paul's philosophy is not consistent with the Tea Party, or the rim job Democrats, or the Republicans.
Ron is a Libertarian, quite different from the Tea Party.
And yes, we all know most of his goals would never be achieved. There are too many Americans who love the Big Government nanny state.
Far from being like, or having the same ideology as Joe Liberman, a middle of the road Libertarian. Who votes 85% of the time to push Progressive policy.
Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist.
The tea party is the original grass roots organization of Ron Paul supporters.
Do people really think he could end public education, the federal reserve, and big government? Are people this naive? There is no way 95% of what Ron Paul says would ever happen.
Firstly, starting a thread with an insult probably won't get you many serious responses. But looking past that, Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that the powers of the President are limited, but as President he would close unConstitutional departments which fell under his prevue and close overseas military bases. The US spends trillions of dollars maintaining an overseas empire and it is bankrupting us.
To be more precise, the anger that transformed the Tea Party into it's (somewhat) present form started just before the actual election. When it was made clear that both the Republican candidate (McCain) and the Democratic one (Obama) were both for bail-outs - that lit the fire. Due to this occurring just about 1 month before the election, there was no time for it gel until after the election. So, I think it is incorrect to say that the Tea Party started as a result of the election, but rather as a result of the pro-bail-out positions of the candidates running for POTUS.
True...but it certainly wasn't the reason Fox didn't have Paul on the debate.
Also people might want to rethink their disdain for the current TEA Party,it can be used by the Paul campaign,it certainly won't sway Ron Paul's stance.
Firstly, starting a thread with an insult probably won't get you many serious responses. But looking past that, Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that the powers of the President are limited, but as President he would close unConstitutional departments which fell under his prevue and close overseas military bases. The US spends trillions of dollars maintaining an overseas empire and it is bankrupting us.
Good points....
I was just reading the wiki(I know it is wiki...) entry on Paul and it spells out his positions quite well for those who have been influenced by the media.
For the life of me, I find nothing radical about him
I actually think Presidents who invade/occupy countries without Congressional declaration of war, to be much more radical than anything I can think of.
I would not consider Paul a weak President, but one of
HIGH MORAL FORTITUDE
By "radical", I mean a radical departure from the current course. I am aware that the style of government that Paul advocates for is much closer to the founders' original intent than what we currently have. However, what we currently have is actually very old as well. Almost from the beginning of the Republic, presidents, justices and lawmakers began interpreting the Constitution in such a way as to give them more power than is explicitly stated.
I know, for example, that many people who are apt to like Ron Paul hate the fact that the Supreme Court can overrule the Congress and find that a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional. Well, the Supreme Court has had this power since 1803, after Supreme Court Justice John Marshall ruled it so in Marbury vs. Madison. You can disagree with this ruling, but your disagreement is somewhat "radical" because you're trying to turn the clock back on 210 years of precedent.
The same can be said about a president ordering troops into combat. That clearly, clearly was never intended by the founders and for very good reason. It's much easier for an individual to decide to start a war than it is for a large body of elected representatives. I could be wrong, but I suspect the overwhelming majority of Americans -- right, left and center -- agree with the Constitution on this one, and think that we should only send troops into harm's way for longer than 60 days on the authority of a congressional declaration of war. But alas ... that's not the way we've done things since Truman's Korean adventure. That was 60 years ago. Sixty years is a long time in the history of our Republic ... greater than 25 percent of our existence. Turning back the clock on this would, at this point, be "radical" ... albeit a radical move that is in keeping with our original laws and traditions that would surely be popular with the people.
Paul would be a principled president, for sure, but he'd be a "weak" one because I don't think he would do much to advance a legislative agenda. He thinks (and correctly so) that the legislative course of the nation is supposed to be charted by the legislative branch. So, all he'd do is say .. no, can't do that ... that either... oops, that one's a no-no too ... to whatever Congress approved.
He'd do a number on U.S. Force structure, which is well within the scope of constitutionally granted executive powers,he'd scale way back on his job as chief law enforcer on certain laws, and he would probably do whatever he could to limit or completely destroy the Fed. After that, what could he do? He couldn't end income taxes because it's the job of the Congress to do that. He could recommend it, but that's about it.
Let's debate the parts of his ideology you disagree with.
His Progressive opposition wants to marginalize Ron Paul.
Yet no one has, or can argue any of his long standing ideology is bad. They just scream freedom is radical and extreme.
Take 30 minutes of your life to get educated and watch the video above.
Your going to find out the truth about Ron Paul.
No flip flopping from that guy.
No he is not! He is an American. A Constitutionalist.
He has nothing in common with Joe Liberman, a middle of the road Libertarian, that votes with the Progressives 85% of the time.
I hope your joking, because Lieberman is NOT a
middle of the road Libertarian - not even close to
a Libertarian
He's a Demopublican. Definitely a foreign policy interventionist.
And, thankfully, he's retiring in 2012.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) entry on Paul and it spells out his positions quite well for those who have been influenced by the media.
Definitely a foreign policy interventionist.
