Is Ron Paul a Real Libertarian?

Thomas Jefferson was president from 1801-1809. During that time, how many foreign nations with despots did he invade, regime change, occupy and rebuild in the name of universal liberty?

 

Is Ron Paul really the nation's leading liberterian?

 

It is a good thing that the french did not believe in "noninterventionism" when we needed help. Old ronnies selfcentered lets walk through the world with blinders on is the hight of ignorance.

 

Sounds like he has been indoctrinated well, and has no real understanding of American history or the Constitutional Republic that our founding fathers put in place.

 

JGrubbs,

Will you explain why it was okay for the US invaded a sovereign country to free people under tyranny?

 

Whom do you think is a more prominent libertarian currently?

 

Well, Mr. Paul is a Republican. So isn't he then not a prominent Libertarian? Maybe he is the most prominent with a small "L" (debatable).

I ask not to be demeaning...just curious.

 

All libertarians are not members of the Libertarian Party - of which I am a member. For instance, the Republican Liberty Caucus supports Republican Party candidates - www.rlc.org.

Okay, so whom would you think is arguably a possibly more prominent small "l" libertarian?

 

However you classify Ron Paul, he stands head and shoulders above Giuliani, McCain, and Romney.

 

There are all sorts of individuals who believe we should invade countries for liberation, that it is our divine duty. Those who constantly flap their jaws about it are those who 90% of the time never served, and 99% of the time never fought. It is like "wave a flag, sing "God Bless America" with no sacrifice.

There are times in history when we should have done what we did. Those who have been there choose their words very carefully, as this is not some giant video game.

 

Yes, saturneptune, and it's a pity that people have called for people to run for president in the two major parties who will be straight shooters with them and then when we finally have such a candidate in Ron Paul these same people try to tear him down. They are like people who could be eating filet mignon and instead choose to keep eating dung.

 

A very accurate discription of the three leading Republicans. (as well as all Democrats).

 

http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=6

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702050002

From National Review Online:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGY0ZDUzN2UxNTQ1ODVmYjc2YjNkZjQ4NDFlMWRiNjU=

From The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070205/pollitt

Regards, hope all is well down there in my hometown,
BiR

 

I'll give Ron Paul this much...if I were to lose my mind and vote for a Repub, it would be him. Still, as Geo. Stephanopoulous told him, he has no chance of winning the Presidency.

 

www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/07/10/dinesh-dsouza-gun-totin-libertarian/

 

Well, I don't know. My purpose in asking that about Paul was not so I could offer a list of people that I felt were. There might be some media types that have more influence (good or bad) like Cunningham, Boortz. J.D. Hayworth is, to me, on that list. An academic like Sowell would probably be on that list (his Basic Economics should be required reading). I'm not saying Paul isn't that man. But let's face it: if he doesn't tee up for Rudy in the debate, people still don't know who Ron Paul is.

Thanks for the RLC link, btw.

 

Hey, Giuliani stepped right into a right cross in the debate and Ron Paul made the most of it. It's Giuliani's own fault that he ended up looking ignorant and poorly read on the subject of terrorism and that Ron Paul made mince meat out of him in that debate.

Politics is all about taking advantage of the opportunities one is presented.

 

:laugh: You really think that's what happened? Come on, Ken.

As I recall, Paul made the statement without any provocation from anyone. And the whole "Rudy is ignorant" is the favorite Paulite line. Maybe he is. But maybe he isn't. Assuming he is is just fallacy. I know Paul likes to put that out there because he has to.

 

1) Yes. I was watching the debate when it happened.

2) As I recall, Congressman Paul was answering a question from a moderator about the issue.

3) Giuliani proved his ignorance to the whole nation that night when he said he had never, ever heard of the idea of blowback. I know what blowback is and my claim to fame is not "I am the president of 9/11" that Giuliani is pinning his presidential hopes on. If I am more knowledgeable than Giuliani do you really want him as your next president?