Tea Party 07 – Ron Paul

Today is December 16, which is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party that originally occurred in 1773. Take a look at Tea Party 07 and then Donate to Ron Paul, the only candidate who will fight the inflation tax that is constantly propagated by the fed.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in blog and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Tea Party 07 – Ron Paul

  1. SkyWarp says:

    Ron Paul? He very much has disappointed me on foreign affairs. When asked about what he would do if our military was attacked, he sidestepped the question three times in order to say, that we should not be all over the world causing problems that might cause people to want to attack us. He also went into a jumbled explanation of why he would not help protect our allies (like Israel) from Islamic attack. That turned me off to him immediately. He seems to know what’s wrong with everything (unlike a lot of the other canidates), but he doesn’t seem to know any feasible way to fix things.

    But then just about every single other candidate has disappointed me this year as well.

    Guliani is of course liberal on social issues and guns.

    McCain is liberal on guns and free speech and is not extremely friendly to Christians.

    Romney has changed positions too many times over the years and is liberal on guns and spends all his time saying how everyone else is evil without giving his own views on issues. I don’t trust him on taxes or any other economy issue.

    Thompson has a mixed record on guns, and is partially thinking of ways to help fix the tax system, but in the end, his hollywood history and various things he has said, do not sit well with me when it comes to Christianity.

    Keyes is pretty good on most issues, but he has virtually no chance of ever winning anything.

    So that left me with just about the only candidate that did not visit my tiny town of Rock Rapids, Iowa. That would be Huckabee. Huckabee is Pro-Gun! He is good on the social issues (abortion, marriage). And his tax plan (income tax replaced by sales tax) is the only real option I like. So that leaves just a couple issues of concern. Immigration being the big one. But after looking closely at everyone’s plans, his is no different than most of the rest of them that are feasible. One of the best things about Huckabee is that he doesn’t go after other candidates (like Romney did to him and everyone else). He simply states his stance on the issues. http://www.mikehuckabee.com/
    So in my local caucus I voted for Huckabee!

  2. Joseph says:

    You say that Ron Paul “doesn’t seem to know any feasible way to fix things.” His philosophy calls for a small government and promotion of individual freedoms. Depending on what things you are referring to he probably doesn’t see it as the governments role to solve the problem. The government should remove itself from most issues and let the market solve the problem. Depending on what issues you are referring to you can look at his site and see what solutions he is proposing at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/. Ron Paul is also Pro-Gun and I wrote an article on Ron Paul’s foreign policy at https://thegreatlands.com/2007/11/23/what-is-the-right-foreign-policy/ that you can feel free to respond to.

  3. SkyWarp says:

    Yes, Ron Paul is pro-gun, the only other candidate besides Mike Huckabee.

    Unfortunately I don’t see where Ron Paul gives specifics on how he would completely change our tax system. He talks about “lower taxes” but not about what that means.

    His philosophy that Iraq is now worse than it use to be is dead wrong, and his idea that our invasion has created more recruits for terror is misleading. There would still be recruits and they would still be attacking the United States any chance they thought they could get.

    Simply having troops in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. makes us safer, and helps us be ready to pounce in a moments notice when we see more BinLadens preparing to attack us like they did in 2001. Why should we let them do it again? We’ve had troops in Germany and Japan for years and we have no worries about another Hitler. Should we pull ALL troops back from ALL places in the world? That would be irresponsible. International travel wasn’t so easy in 1776 or 1800 or even 1940. But now its extremely easy for those that are wanting to take over the world (like all militant muslims want to do) to get from one continent to another. We need to be ready to hit them before they get to us.

  4. Joseph says:

    In all of his speeches on taxes he has said that his desire is to get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing.

    I don’t really think you can say what you are about the middle east without researching what we have been doing over their for decades. For starters their is Operaction Ajax and then you can read Blowback and other books that Ron Paul recommends on the subject.

  5. SkyWarp says:

    The past is the past. The now is now. We have to deal with the now. Besides, that “democratic” government that Britain wanted overthrown was trying to socialize the oil industry. Not a very “democratic” idea.

    Perhaps we should pay all the descendants of slaves? No, the past is past. We need to deal with the present.

    The present day situation is that these anti-christian nations hate us because we are both christian and free. Pulling out of all these places would only bring about a HUGE influx of new recruits for terrorism and our own borders would be even more vulnerable than they already have become. We can put all the troops we want on our borders to protect them, but in a world of long range missles and airplanes, troops on our border do nothing more than prevent illegals from crossing (if even that). I’d rather our troops be protecting us on other nations that having to protect us in our own streets.

  6. Joseph says:

    The past is worthy of looking at if part of the discussion is why they don’t like us. We don’t need to “fix the past” but we should be willing to look at the past and see what was right and what was wrong. After admitting it we should look at how it relates to what our policies are today and be willing to change if necessary. A continual policy of intervention and manipulation is going to continue to produce negative repercussions.

    We can learn from the past. The Shah that we helped to put in power wasn’t very “democratic” either. Instead of trying to manipulate a hopeful desired outcome that we can clearly see the negatives of now we should try non-intervention. It wouldn’t be any worse than what we have now.

Comments are closed.