Posted on 09/07/2007 8:18:27 AM PDT by april15Bendovr
Ron Paul refuses to declare war against Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq.
We have made it clear here at Free Republic that there is irrefutable documentation showing Saddam's WMD program and links to Al Qaeda under this section on the website
PreWarDocs
Ron Paul continues to appease our enemy.
I am officially posting a declaration of war against Ron RuPaul here at Free Republic on behalf of patriotic Americans who support our troops mission in Iraq.
Maybe not everything, just whatever we disagree on.
“My gut feeling”
My gut feeling is that you started a thread of criticism that you are very much not prepared to defend. I’ve posted on some extremely conservative and patriotic threads recently, and I’ll note that I did not see you posting. When that sword you’re swinging at others over your concepts of conservatism and patriotism comes back around...think about ducking. It cuts both ways. You never did answer my one question I posted to you. Don’t bother, as I suspect it’s because you don’t know.
So does Congress.
Perhaps the best response is to ignore his posts.??!!
Only that which pertains to crazy people wanting to kill my countrymen, whether I agree with them or not...
Yes, if both participants are truly gentlemen.
We have a candidate in the Republican party that would leave us vulnerable to international terrorism while simultaneously killing the honor of our troops mission in Iraq.
And just how would that happen? At any point in time, the ENTIRE ISLAMIC WORLD can be reduced to 7th Century Technology...more likely stone age technology...by the US Military. Our troops accomplished all realistic military objectives...incidentally, have you ever actually served in the military, or do you just merely stand on the sidelines cheering for other people's kids to risk their lives? In combat? (Just in case you're wondering, the last five generations of my family have served, some returning in body bags, presently my son is about to deploy, if i was young enough, i'd be back in the military).
Now why don't you explain to all of us how the big, bad Islamic boogie man is going to get us? You know, the guys from a land that will cease to exist a half hour after they pull off any real damage to this nation, even if Ron Paul is in the White House.
YOu face a better chance of being hit by lightening, or dying in an automibile accident.
Go take some Prozac.
Sorry, I don’t trust anyone who thinks I need to be lied to for my own good, about anything.
No terrorists are going to attack America directly again, if they know what's good for them, regardless who's President.
His stand on handling the terrorists 'over there' before they can come here is unacceptable to me.
His stand is perfectly reasonable. Secure America's borders and rebuild the military and let these heathens kill each other over religious discrepancies. I don't care about the Middle East, do you?
I could never support a candidate whose followers claim we went into Iraq for oil, that the U.S. perpetrated 9/11, that CFR is about installing a one-world government, and who gather followers from the likes of Code Pink and Moveon.org.
And that means Dr. Paul supports the views of a few nutjobs who are trying to exploit his campaign? Please stop with the guilt-by-association tactics.
Paul denounced the truthers, and there is no proof that these anti-war leftist organizations are ACTIVELY supporting Paul or that the OFFICIAL Paul campaign is colluding with them. If they are, I'd be the first to denounce Paul and will discontinue posting on Paul threads. Keep in mind though, that there are literally thousands of grassroots supporters who are volunteering their support of Paul WHO ARE IN NO WAY connected with the OFFICIAL campaign. There are individuals who may be loosely affiliated with these groups that are trying to hijack Paul's campaign, but with an unprecedented, total grassroots campaign such as Paul, you simply cannot identify who these individuals are.
So saying that Paul is in bed with the anti-war radicals and leftist groups is disingenuous.
well, I appreciate that article because it is a very rational and well thought out disagreement with RP and describes well the main areas that those on FR disagree with him. At that point we can either agree to disagree or further discuss the various points; yet it is clear the author does not think him a lunatic, madman, and respects him in other ways.
FYI, a short and somewhat funny video, which has some truth to it IMO:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/23/daily-show-three-generations-of-america-to-the-rescue/
TOP 10 BOGUS RON PAUL HEADLINES THAT WILL SOON APPEAR ON FREE REPUBLIC posted by april15Bendovr:
10. Ron Paul is a member of al Qaeda, CIA sources say
9. Ron Paul spotted with Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton snorting cocaine and drinking booze at a trendy LA nightspot
8. Ron Paul to be indicted for the 1994 murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman
7. Sen. Larry Craig Confession: Ron Paul was my gay lover
6. Ron Paul (aka Juan Valdez) Is an Illegal Mexican immigrant, ICE documents claim
5. AMA accuses Dr. Ron Paul of infecting his patients with HIV during his private practice
4. Congressman Ron Paul arrested for DWI; weapons cache and dead body found in trunk
3. Nude pictures of Ron Paul surface on the internet
2. Ron Paul indicted on federal dog fighting charges
1. Congressman Ron Paul vehemently denies membership in the 8 Tre Gangsta Crip street gang despite mounting evidence
Peggy Noonan has this to say today:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010568
The debate was full of fireworks about Iraq, about its essentials—the rightness of the endeavor, and what should rightly be done now. From the libertarian Ron Paul a blunt argument against the war: We never should have gone in and we should get out. “The people who say there’ll be a blood bath are the same ones who said it would be a cakewalk. . . . Why believe them?” His foreign policy: “Mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend our country, defend our borders.” After Mr. Paul spoke, it seemed half the room booed, but the other applauded. When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something’s going on.
Ron Paul’s support isn’t based on his persona, history or perceived power. What support he has comes because of his views. As he spoke, you could hear other candidates laughing in the background. They should stop giggling, and engage in a serious way.
That’s the nuance with what people call the “two party system”, which in effect is really just like every other parliamentary system...you have multiple factions forming a governming coalition even though we don’t call it that.
Ron Paul is not going to be the GOP nominee. Let’s be honest here. I don’t even agree with his position on the Iraq war. What he can do is run on the LP ticket after taking advantage of the face time on prime time TV in the GOP debates.
In a close race, we’ll see who is laughing then. When 5-10% of the GOP libertarian base says to the potential GOP candidate and their supporter: show me how you are a federalist, limited government adherent and MAYBE I will pull the lever for you.
Suddenly the big Gubmint GOP types will have to listen.
This question will get another 300 posts.
Does Ron Paul want to legalize marijuana?
Regardless of what you think about Paul’s foreign policy stand, and I don’t agree with much of it...
Paul’s the only Republican candidate who actually wants to cut the Federal budget, not just the “growth of spending.”
For that reason alone, he’s worth consideration, in my view.
Ron Paul on Drugs
Click here for 6 full quotes on Drugs OR background on Drugs.
Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)
He would let the states handle marijuana policy.
I seem to recall a time when something called "veracity" was valued here in the course of debate. Then came the mantra of "everything changed after 9/11", and that seems to justify just about anything.
The terrorost say "We don't like you, or your govenrment, or your way of life. But by hijacking a few airplanes and flying them into the right buildings, we can change everything. We can make you afraid. We can make you give up you traditions of individual liberty, we can make your Constitution irrelevant."
I'm not willing to give them that.
I agree.
“He works with and supports the anti-war 9/11 Truther wackos. He actually believes and preaches that crap.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Denies involvement in 9/11 conspiracy theories
Some have claimed that Paul believes that the attack on the World Trade Center was a part of a government conspiracy, and associated him with “9/11 truthers.” However, Paul has explicitly denied this. On the Mike Gallagher radio show on July 19, 2007 he said “Some people try to twist what I say and turn it into that, and I think some of my supporters lean in that direction, but that’s not my position. I do think government’s basically inept. I mean we were spending $40 billion a year collecting intelligence and a lot of information was out there. We had one FBI agent, I think sent dozens and dozens of memos to his superiors saying that there are people trying to fly airplanes but not land them, and nobody would pay any attention. So, I don’t think that’s a conspiracy. I think that’s a lot of bureaucracy that doesn’t work very well. And, then when we have government investigations, whether it’s 9/11 or assassinations, I think the main goal is to protect the government and to protect their ineptness - not - and that is a lot different than saying ‘Oh they conspired to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war in the Middle East whether they had anything to do with 9/11 or not.’ I don’t see it that way. But, I believe some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn’t something that was deliberately done.” [34] When Paul was asked by Shawn Wasson in an interview on LiveLeak.com if he believed that “9/11 was orchestrated by the government,” Paul responded emphatically, “Absolutely not.”[35] Paul was again asked in an interview on Fox news on August 5 if he agreed with the conspiracy theorists; he explicitly said that he does not believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy and that he does not think the government would stage an attack.[36]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.