Subject:
|
Dr. No, or how to be a Republican and libertarian at the same time
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:45:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1168 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
<snip some musings about the nature of principle in an unprincipled party>
Here is the LP's spin on "Dr. NO", from their excellent list of net liberty
resources here: http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0110/websites.html
Dan J. ought to like paragraph 3 (note please that I am not in favor of
sanctions either, I just didn't see them as the main, or even a significant,
reason for Cuba's abject failure)
- start -
Name: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul Address: www.House.gov/paul
The Libertarian Party may not have elected any U.S. Representatives under
its own banner yet, but Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is definitely the next best thing.
Paul, who ran as the LP presidential candidate in 1988, is respectfully
known as "Dr. No" in the U.S. House for his refusal to support any
legislation that empowers the government at the expense of individual liberty.
Paul's website, dubbed "Project Freedom," is a wealth of information. You
can read the pro-liberty legislation Rep. Paul has sponsored or
co-sponsored, such as HR 2662 (to lift the trade embargo on Cuba), HR 1762
(to repeal all federal gun-control laws), and HR 1597 (to repeal the
Selective Service Act).
You can also read weekly installments of his column, "Texas Straight Talk,"
which discusses topical political issues. Recent installments include "Free
Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies," "The Fed Cannot Create
Prosperity," and "Congressional Spending Threatens Your Retirement."
And don't miss Paul's "FreedomWatch" alerts, which subscribers receive
whenever liberty-threatening legislation looms on the House horizon. It's an
especially valuable tool for the action-oriented freedom fighter.
All those who say the "practical" world of politics requires a compromise of
principle need look no further than Ron Paul's website to see they are dead
wrong.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LP statement on terrorist attacks
|
| (...) Hmm... I think I'm slipping back and forth between Paul's case(1), so you're most likely correct about his consistency. I was speaking more in the abstract, conjecturing a case in which Candidate X ran under another party by falsely professing (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
