GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Back at the Summit — Media Room

by

Everytime I start to get up to go back to the ballroom…. our small media room starts kicking.

Congressman Ron Paul is at the podium now, mostly talking about his fundraising success lately… and his views on reducing the size of government and scaling back the international presence of the United States.  (Did I hear him use the word “imperialism”??)  I know I’m paraphrasing a lot, but that’s his general message:  less government, more freedom, out of Iraq & the world.

paul.JPG

US Senator Sam Brownback has now come in and also taking questions from the press.   He’s talking about reforming the tax code… an “optional flat tax”.   So far neither Brownback nor Romney have talked about the grassroots-supported “Fair Tax” concept.  (I don’t know if Ron Paul spoke about it in the ballroom).

brownback2.JPG

Brownback is now stating that fundraising has been difficult and his position on immigration has caused him grief in his campaigning.  (As well it should…)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  4. TGC, given some of the anti-Iraq-while-claiming-to-be-conservative-and/or-libertarian characters we’ve had around here, I’m surprised we don’t see more Paul supporters around here.

  5. I just want to know 2 things about Paul:

    1) Is he – or is he not – an ex-Lyndon Larouche follower?

    2) Do his conspiracy-mongering and anti-Iraq views stem from insanity, or from the old John Bircher, isolationist type of tradition?

  6. Ron Paul wouldn’t saddle us with a national sales tax, and a larger and more powerful IRS-type bureaucracy to administer it. Think about it, if the people revolt against unconstitutional government, they don’t pay their likely illegitimate tax burden. What are you going to do if the government has their tax collectors everywhere you shop? Stop buying things? The people will have one less check on tyrannical government. Ron Paul soundly advocates eliminating the IRS, and replacing it…with nothing.

  9. Ron Paul is not and has never been a Lydon LaRouche supporter, to my knowledge. LaRouche is not a libertarian, he’s run for the Democrat nomination and Labor Party nomination. I’m not aware of any ideological similarities between Ron Paul and LaRouche. Ron Paul ran on the LP ticket in ’88. I’m around both GOP and LP people (more GOP past few years), but never have run into any LaRouche fans, or anyone that has even brought him up.

  10. Crow, I’m going to acknowledge you here for attempting a very direct answer.

    Your example inspired me to do a little research. I just googled “ron paul larouche”. The top hit shows that, while Ron Paul may not now (or in the past) be a LaRouche supporter, LaRouche is something of a Ron Paul supporter as they share similar ideas.

    I don’t believe in guilt-by-association. However, I do believe in criticizing and confronting bad claims / ideas as such. As the link makes clear, Ron Paul does walk around saying irresponsible stuff along the rough lines of “the White House used 9/11 to attack Iraq” and “The same White House will do the same thing against Iran”.

    I’m sorry Crow, David, etc., but such sentiments do mark Paul as a conspiracy-mongerer who harms our troops’ efforts with his insulting and misleading conspiracy-based claims… which, in layman’s terms, is a “moonbat”.

  11. P.S. To respond to the indicated ideas more specifically:

    – “the White House used 9/11 to attack Iraq”: No, they used 9/11 to attack **Afghanistan**.

    To attack Iraq, they used 12 years of U.N. resolutions, intelligence from all world intelligence agencies about Saddam’s links to terrorism as well as to WMD efforts, and most important, U.S. Congressional resolutions. The latter included a 1998 law (repeat, *law*) that required (repeat, *required*) the incumbent Administration to pursue Iraq regime change, plus the 2002 resolution authorizing the present war.

    – “The same White House will do the same thing against Iran”: If I may ignore / eliminate the conspiracy-mongering aspect which I’ve already refuted, and merely address the general question of whether the White House is considering an attack on Iran: I hope they are considering it.

    Some years ago, President Bush rightly identified Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the 3 leading rogue states. Given Iran’s nuclear ambitions and ambitions to destroy both Israel and the United States, a pre-emptive attack on Iran might (repeat, **might**) be a very good thing.