Posted on 09/07/2007 10:40:07 AM PDT by NapkinUser
Edited on 09/07/2007 2:31:57 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Has this been a hectic and encouraging time! First we got almost 17% in the Texas straw poll, an event set-up to represent the establishment, with very restrictive voting rules. That 17% of the Republican hierarchy would support our views, after a full day of pro-war propaganda, is good news. Then we won the more open Maryland Republican straw poll with 28%. In both cases, as usual, hard-working, well-organized volunteers made all the difference.
The Fox debate was a lot of fun as well. It's true that a few of the network people are not exactly with us on foreign or domestic policy (though one famous guy whispered to me that he is a libertarian), but the audience—with lots of students from the University of New Hampshire—was definitely fair and balanced, as their enthusiastic reaction showed.
My opponents called for more war, more torture, more secret prisons, more eavesdropping, more presidential power. Some seemed to identify the government and the people as if they were one entity. But you and I know that once the government moves beyond its very limited constitutional mandate, it is an opponent of the people, a rip-off operation that takes our money and our freedom and our social peace, and gives us a mess of statist pottage in return.
The government failed miserably on 911 to protect us, despite spending trillions. So the answer was supposed to be the giant, socialist Department of Homeland Security, protecting you and me from taking our toothpaste on the airplane. I was ridiculed for saying that the airlines, which know best how to protect their property, should have been allowed to arm their pilots. But then, you and I really believe in the Second Amendment. It is not just a political slogan for us.
When I discussed the blowback that came from us intervening on the Arabian peninsula, Chris Wallace asked me if I wanted to follow the marching orders of al-Qaeda. I responded that I wanted to follow the marching orders of the Constitution, and not wage undeclared, aggressive wars that cause us only trouble. This is a mystifying to some, of course, but not to more and more Americans.
There was much talk of taxes, and a pledge not to raise rates. But as usual, I was not allowed to discuss my lifelong pledge to abolish the income tax. Just holding the line, when the government takes such vast sums through an illegitimate guilty-until-proven-innocent system, is hardly enough. We need to slash taxes and spending if we are to have a future of prosperity for ourselves and our families.
After the debate, many young people gathered around the stage to discuss our ideas and ask questions about them (and to have me sign their badges). My colleagues got no such response, and after a few moments, "security" ordered me off the stage. Can't have any such demonstration of interest in liberty.
But the young are with us, and so are Americans of every stripe. Even party officials. When one of my opponent said it was OK to lose elections through supporting the Iraq war, that set party people's teeth on edge, and rightly so. The Republican party is shrinking. We need new people. It's either our ideas or President Hillary, and more and more people recognize it.
But the media, and everyone else, will be looking at fundraising totals at the end of this month. They'll judge us by how we do. And we need help to wage what we hope will be a full-scale, 50-state campaign. Please help me head into the next quarter fully armed to do battle for freedom, peace and prosperity. Make your most generous contribution https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/. This Revolution is on the move, but it very much needs your support.
Sincerely,
Ron
LOL!
Did you see Osama’s tape today? Your name was in the credits under “The producers would like to thank...”
Al-Qaeda hates and targets America because America is : (a) powerful and (b) not Muslim.Al-Qaeda's goal is a restoration of the world to what they perceive to be its golden age: an era when an armed Islam united under a supreme Caliph was the world's uncontested superpower.
Anything America does or fails to do is a sufficient excuse for their hatred.
Modifying our policies in any way will not change the fact that we are powerful and not Muslim.
16 posted on 05/17/2007 11:58:35 AM PDT by wideawake
_____________________________________________
It is one thing to make a case on the merits that our foreign policies should be changed. Perhaps we should end our alliance with Israel. Perhaps we should remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, or lift the sanctions on Iraq. But not under duress. A policy designed to keep from offending people who might be inclined to attack us is a policy of preemptive capitulation to terrorists. In his address to Congress, President Bush explained why the terrorists kill: "With every atrocity they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends." The terrorists' hope is the frank advice of those who would have us back away from Israel because of the September 11 attacks [or run out of Iraq like scalded dogs].
Dishonorable in principle, such a policy would also fail in practice. There would be no obvious stopping-point to it. Having seen terrorism accomplish its objectives in the Mideast, why should North Korea not use it to make us withdraw our protection from South Korea? Beijing could sponsor terrorism until we let it swallow Taiwan. In the past, Puerto Rican independistas have resorted to terror. Etc. Shall we capitulate to them all?
Here, then, is the true strategy being recommended to America: Curl up and die.--Ramesh Ponnuru
One of the other candidates at the debate (can't remember who) noted that criminal prisoners in the staes and districts represented by every dem who's called for Gitmo to close are treated worse than the guys at Gitmo. Yet Ron Paul thinks it's a "national embarassment" because we're not treating those poor jihadis the right way.
Ooops...I should have written Edwards...but i'm sure Paul feels the same!
Bears repeating.
Even if I agreed with that, the problem is that your candidate is saying that if someone decides to deliver a kiloton of combat power into downtown Manhattan and bath stockbrokers in jet fuel, that's a perfectly understandable response to the presence of a few thousand American troops in a country that invited us to come on over. That's lunacy.
That's weird...I didn't know you were from kentucky, Ms. Sheehan, I thought you were a Californian. Well, you learn something new every day on FR.
I thought Cindy Sheehan was from California, not Kentucky.
Yeah, I'm buying that.
Oh, that sentence is accurate...the problem is the context. The reason the government failed to protect us on 9/11 is because Bill Clinton to a Ron Paul approach to fighting terrorism. Then, in addition, Paul blames us for the attacks.
Wow. What a nut eh?
And clueless. Ron acts like the Homeland Security guys just woke up one day and decided toothpaste was bad. He ignores the London multi-plane bomb plot because it doesn't fit his worldview. Then he serves up his legitimate (sort of, see below) gripe about arming pilots, but he seems to forget that an armed pilot won't stop terrorists from blowing the plane in half at 40,000 feet over the atlantic with a liquid explosive IED.
Sounds like a Freeper to me.
Nope, sounds like he's short on credibility. Frist, the airlines (who Ron says "know best how to protect their property") opposed arming the pilots. Second, while he may have been ridiculed by some gun control twits somewhere, he was NOT ridiculed by the administration or any of the conservatives like myself that his followers like to accuse of fascism/socialism/spreading typhoid, etc.
OK...now I KNOW you're drinking the Kool-Aid. There is not a single person who has been following the news since '03 who deosn't know the Mission Accomplished banner referred to the mission of USS Abraham Lincoln, and that the President only declared that major combat ops were done.
Fight the "insurgents" like a War. Go into Syria and Iran if necessary. Smash them. Kill them.
And another person who owns Zapp Brannigan's Big Book of War is heard from. The way to beat insurgents is to use old school counter-insurgent tactics. That's what we're doing, and it's working like a charm. Petraeus is doing an outstanding job, and your posts only make sense in the following two cases:
1. You're posting through a time warp from Summer 2006.
2. You're Dick Durbin
Aw...that's so cute! Let's try some facts, shall we?
Ron Paul on Declarations of War
If Ron Paul would really be glad to fight against our enemies as long as there was a formal declaration of war, why did he vote for the September 14, 2001 "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," which...
...was not a declaration of war (at least not in the sense of "declaration of war" Ron Paul supporters use on this board).
...was not confined to any particular nation even though we were already sure that Afghanistan was harboring the home organization of the hijackers.
...gave the President authority to choose when to act, something Paul says was unconstitutional when we did it against Iraq.
...by Paul's own admittance, targeted "a group which is not a country."
And why did Paul call the September 14 resolution "[a] clear declaration of war" but claim that the Iraq authorization, which is much more specific, is not a declaration of war?
Seems like he's trying to have it both ways...one has to ask, "why?"
Source is here.
Hmmm...
LOL!
Operation Iraqi Freedom--Definition: The resumption of hostilities with Iraq when that nation egregiously and repeatedly violated the cease fire agreement signed with the United States in 1991.
The face looked different to me...like they found a cousin who's got a little bit of ugly going on.
I guess the spooks will tell us if the voice matches up.
Is this what passes for debate here over republican candidates and ideas now?
No debate or any real discussions of the issues here. Just a few excited people spending a lot of time posting graphics meant to discredit this guy. I personally ignore all the gibberish.
I never, ever allow others to sway me, especially when it comes to politics. I am always suspicious of individuals attempting to convince others on how and who to vote for.
We just spent some time on RPs site, watching videos and some of his campaign speeches. It was very interesting.
Dishonorable in principle, such a policy would also fail in practice. There would be no obvious stopping-point to it. Having seen terrorism accomplish its objectives in the Mideast, why should North Korea not use it to make us withdraw our protection from South Korea? Beijing could sponsor terrorism until we let it swallow Taiwan. In the past, Puerto Rican independistas have resorted to terror. Etc. Shall we capitulate to them all?
Thanks for the Ponnuru quote, it pretty much says it all. And it should be noted that in order to gain vital Hispanic support for Hillary's first Senate run, Bill Clinton pardoned many of the Puerto Rican terrorists.
What annoys me the most about Paul, his people, and people who think like them is that seem to subscribe to some mystical spirituality that protects the nation from its enemies just as long as the government doesn't engage in domestic espionage, "torture," or foreign intervention. It seems like they think that if waterboarding is the only way to save the United States from devastation, then it's not worth saving.
Fine. Go save the victims that you want to save on your own dime and leave the rest of us out of it. The different sects of the Muslim cult/faith have been murdering one another for centuries and throwing our army personnel and money at the problem isn't going to fix it. I'd prefer to see my tax dollars go to protect the Christians in South Africa but you won't see that happening because that region doesn't have any oil reserves that we know of! The U.S. is not supposed to be the policemen of the world.
Ron Paul's policy is to leave everyone else to their own devices until they mess with us directly and then blow the you-know-what out of them. He voted to go after Bin Laden and Al Quieda but that wasn't good enough for Bush and his ilk. You DO realize that the plans for invading (yes, invading) Iraq were drawn up while Clintoon was still in office don't you? I also suppose that you knew that the (not so) Patriot Act was written well before 9/11, didn't you? Ron Paul is not a pacifist. He's a protectionist. There's a difference between throwing the first punch (being a bully) and defending yourself and preemptive wars are bullying. War on terror indeed! This mess is ALL about the money and the control of the sheople! How the heck does giving up our freedom at home make us safer? How does 'allowing' us less than 3 oz of toothpaste on a plane while our borders remain wide open keep us safer? Answers are, they don't but a lot of you seem to want to side-step these issues. Of course, when our own government starts making our own citizens un-persons you'll just clap and cheer because you'll be told they were 'terrorists' or that they were 'conspiring' with 'terrorists' instead of questioning what really might be happening. Terrorists and terrorism are the new catch-phrases of the day - just like the word Communist was back in the 40s and 50s. Tell me, what IS the objective in Iraq? Supposedly it was to remove Saddam from power. That's been done. Then is was to 'help' the Iraqis set up a democratic form of government (whether they wanted it or not). That's been done. If the objective has now been changed (again) to ensure peace there - we're never going to be able to leave. Kinda reminds me of Vietnam - no clear objective and no word of what constitutes 'winning'. You can WIN a war. A police action never ends. So which is it?
Somebody on this thread said earlier that we basically 'need' to control the middle-east's oil to keep it 'safe'. Here's a better idea and another one that Ron Paul supports - try lessening the government regulations and control on our own oil businesses so they can build more refineries here so we can process our OWN oil reserves (think An-war, etc.). Want to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels? Think nuclear. Something else Dr. Paul supports but the environmental wackos constantly decry as unsafe (never mind that a good hunk of Europe has been using is safely for a long time). It's good enough to power our ships and submarines but not good enough to heat and cool our homes?? Yeah, right!
Use your brains people!! Some doofus tried to call me a lib/moonbat here earlier - that's the first time in history that anyone has tried to accuse me of being a liberal and all because I support Ron Paul. FR used to be all about open debate. Nowadays it looks like the posters (especially the newer ones) are more into name-calling and ad Hominem attacks whenever they disagree with someone.
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.