Posted on 09/18/2007 11:07:18 PM PDT by NapkinUser
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul had a good week. On Sunday, he made off with the Manchester GOP straw poll (Paul took 66 percent; Thompson was next, with 10 percent. Sam Brownback came in last, with half a percentage point). Soon after, Paul picked up the endorsement of Rep. Paul Ingbretson.
(Excerpt) Read more at cmonitor.com ...
Hey my friend, how do you reconcile being pro-Paul and Pro-Tanc? Besides being swell guys? They are diametrically opposed in their reactions to the war on terrorists.
Not being hostile, just curious.
Ron Paul wins big Manchester, New Hampshire straw poll.
Reminds me of those guys at the airport collecting for that tax evader from Missouri.
The war of terror isn't my big issue. Illegal immigration, fiscal conservatism, gun rights and American sovereignty are. And Paul and Tancredo are best on all of those issues combined.
Paul wants secure borders and to end birthright citizenship. He's pro-tax cuts and probably the most conservative member of congress when it comes to second amendment rights. Paul also supports withdrawing the U.S. from the UN (he authored the bill), opposed CAFTA and opposes the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).
Tancredo, well everyone knows about him on illegal immigration. He's got the highest rating of any republican candidate from the ACU. He wins the "friend of the taxpayer" award every year and was one of like ten congressmen to try and reign in federal spending immediatly following hurricane Katrina. Tancredo has an 'A' from the gun owners of America. He supports withdrawing the U.S. from the UN, voted against CAFTA and also opposes LOST.
In 2 of those 4 points Hunter exceeds Paul and Tanc. One -guns- is a tie. Though no one fought the AWB harder than Hunter, and I mean no one. Since HUnter advcates huge spending on the military, he gets dinged by groups like Club for Growth.
Thanks for the answer though. Does splain it. BTW, we will be at war a long time, and it could be with China as well.
I find it interesting that you claim not to be hostile since you and some of your friends are quite hostile and troll-like on every Ron Paul thread.
However, I can explain it with ease. If you are a Ron Paul supporter mainly because of his opposition to Iraq, then you'll only like Paul among the Republicans and also find yourself supporting some of the Dems. That's not me or, I suspect, most of the FReeper Ron Paul supporters.
On the other hand, if you like Paul mainly because of his opposition to big government, the North American Union, the CFR, ect. (that's where I'm coming from) - then you'll like Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter - pretty much in that order. The other Republicans running are a bunch of big government, globalist CFR members.
Democratic candidates - big government socialists, who are also CFR one worlders, are even more repulsive. But from where I stand - there isn't much difference between Clinton/Obama and Rudy McThomney - either way, kiss American sovereignty good-bye.
Did that answer your question?
He was just asking, don't make anything of it.
This guy is a 100% cuckoo, he has no chance. When will this guy go away. Are there this many crazy people in this country keeping his candidacy alive? Wow are we in trouble. He’s the Dennis Kucinich of the GOP and that’s not a good thing.
Dennis Kucinich: Wants to increase the number of federal departments.
Ron Paul: Wants to decrease the number of federal departments.
I'll just leave it with that one, but Kucinich and Paul are nothing alike. Not on taxes and spending. Not on guns rights. Not on illegal immigration. Not on education. Not on health care. Not on foreign issues even.
Plus, look at Kucinich's 2008 slogan: "Strength through Peace".
Enough said?
As you may recall, Bush ‘41 essentially went to sleep for 10 months — letting his COS essentially try to run th nation.
From my perspective, I let my emotions get way ahead of political reality.
Regardless of Paul’s Libertarian appeal to our more pristine conservative principles, functioning democracy requires effective leadership to wallow in the nastiness of the vast wretched swamp called Political Reality — the huge grey middle ground that embodies any real semblance of functioning democratic government!
We are in a global war for the survival of Western Democracy — and a way of life that our fore-bearers gave blood and treasure for (including my father) !
I submit that we serious Republicans would do well to remember this lesson.
Paul is irrelevant in the scheme of credible political discourse. He represents a very intellectually flawed fringe of the party that would rather go down with the Good Ship Principle — than swim for a lifeboat — to fight another day -- for the overall welfare (and ultimate survival) of our Republic.
Rant over, but this is serious stuff, folks.
The polls showing little public support for our current nation building exercise is a reality that you should not ignore.
As far as this war and political reality go, William F. Buckley once remarked that the defining element of conservatism is realism--realism about the limits of state power, the nature of human beings and societies, the complexity of international life. Yet many conservatives who believe that the state can do nothing right at home think that it can do nothing wrong abroad. (If things go badly, why, more money, bigger bombs and ground troops will straighten it out.) Many who are scornful of social engineering at home seem sure it will work beyond our borders. They seem convinced that good intentions and a burst of state power can transform the world. How conservative is that?
Ron Paul appeals to republicans, democrats and libertarians. For different reasons, but he still appeals to every group. He'd wipe the floor with Hillary Clinton. Paul wouldn't look like a gigantic hypocrite on Iraq like she would.
I have been watching this discussion with interest, as I was naive enough to think that Perot could make a bit of a difference in ‘92.
Let's try this again:
Perot: general election
Paul: republican primary
Paul ain't a spoiler candidate.
The man is a loser. The big issue is our security.
He does’nt get it!
Any cheap so-called conservative candidate will
talk about tax cuts and fiscal responsibility.
Hey, Alan Keyes has made his pitch for President.
Running mates?
or
Paul/Sheehan '08?
I agree. Paul is one of the few candidates who is serious about border security. I don't want another so-called conservative in office for 4-8 years doing nothing to secure this country.
Appeasing dictators is what Mr. Paul would do.
He’s going to talk to them. Another Jimmah Carter. There is a
serious flaw with Paul’s thinking.
No doubt about it if straw polls determined the Republican nominee Paul would have it wrapped up already..... But they don’t so on with the campaign.
I’ve asked before and wonder if you’d care to speculate..... Assuming Paul doesn’t win the Republican nomination where do you think his supporters will land if they stay in the process?
Nation building?
Agreed, the big issue is security; so first secure the border and then let Congress declare war, and once so declared, fight it like a war; meaning use all possible and effective means to achieve the objectives contingent for victory. One doesn’t pull any punches in a fight for one’s life, and neither should our military. Stormtroopers break down doors; let’s get our infantry sifting through glowing rubble.
CODE PINK HELPED HIM WIN! AND THAT NH STATE REP IS A TRUTHER!!!!
“The other Republicans running are a bunch of big government, globalist CFR members.”
“Democratic candidates - big government socialists, who are also CFR one worlders, are even more repulsive. But from where I stand - there isn’t much difference between Clinton/Obama and Rudy McThomney - either way, kiss American sovereignty good-bye.”
Bears repeating.
One day people will come to realize the forces that actually control from behind the scenes.
You want to compare our nation building policy in a country barely the size of one of our larger States to our actions following WWII? That's a joke. Do not be a bed wetting coward. If we allow fear to change the very basis of our freedoms that this country was founded on then we are our own worst enemy and give terrorists a victory over us by default. And the curious rant that you went on did not address the substance of my post at all.
LOL
AQ and militant Islamic fundamentalism are not state-actors. They cannot be deterred my MAD or retaliation. And if they acquire WMD, they will be able to inflict mass casualties far greater than those we suffered during WWII. You can't compare them with the Soviets.
We didn’t pass civil liberty violations such as the Patriot Act nor did we create fascist government depts. like the Dept. of Homeland Security to make us “feel safe.”
The directors of the FBI and CIA have testified under oath that the Patriot Act is vital for our security. Do you believe them? Your hatred of our government fits in with the Blame America crowd. Whether you believe it or not, we are at war.
If we allow fear to change the very basis of our freedoms that this country was founded on then we are our own worst enemy and give terrorists a victory over us by default. And the curious rant that you went on did not address the substance of my post at all.
What specific freedoms have you lost since 9/11?
Who?
Anyway, I find it so cute that the Paulestinians get all excited about Paul winning a straw poll, but they claim someone was cheating if he loses.
To: nottimmon
“If you honestly believe this, you really need some sort of medication. Only a person completely disconnected from reality would make this remark.”
Let me give you just one example for the “reality” check.
One assumption that I hope we agree on: The Patriot Act is, in many regards, blatantly unconstitutional.
Based on that assumption, who do you think wrote the Patriot Act?
Do you think that massive socialist piece of legislation was written in the time period between Sept 11th and it’s enactment?
Here is the reality check.
That bill was written by the bureaucrats from both Republican and Democrat administrations over many years, just sitting in the wings waiting for the “right time” to introduce it to Congress for passage.
The reason I know this to be true is because there is a state version that was composed by the same bureaucrats and distributed to the states for their enactment, so everyone would be on the same page, so to speak. (socialism)
When I found out about that state version being introduced in my state legislature, I confronted by state senator about it and asked who spent the thousand of hours necessary, writing this piece of crap.
That is when he ‘fessed up and told me it has been state of composition for years, just waiting for the “right time” to be fined tuned and introduced for passage and enactment.
And, at the federal level, what majority party in Congress and what party was the President who signed the bill a member of?
REPUBLICANS
And would not a Democrat congress and president have done the same?
I rest my case. Thank you for taking the time to read these messages and reply to them.
26 posted on 02/20/2003 4:18:55 PM PST by tahiti
---------------------------------------------- You have a lot more faith in the Democrats than I do. The Feds are gathering a lot more than what is being admitted to from the Patriot Act, which by the way is not the slighest bit patriotic.
So... our borders are secure? We're using all the tools possible to bring the war to a swift conclusion? We're not allowing our Enemies to paint us into a political corner?
Yeah... I didn't think so. You haven't thought this through very far have you...
H.R.3162 PATRIOT ACT{ YOUR NEW- POLICESTATE- LOOK FOR YOUR SELF}
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/557871/posts?
q=1&;page=1
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.06D.JVB.Patriot.htm
Well done.
DEMOCRACY???
Excuse me?
What exact "democracy" is that again?
"A way of life"?
Gee, and all this time I thought it was FREEDOM that our forefathers fought and died for.
Mutual Assured Destruction.
Their side wanted to die no more than our side did. The threat was real for both the Soviet Union and the United States. Cooler heads would tend to always prevail. That equation has changed.
We now face an enemy who wants to die for its cause. There is a big difference between a people willing to die for their cause and one wanting to do so. The inhibition of certain death is removed. Until you understand that simple concept you will not have a grasp that the nature of war has changed.
These radicals are rapidly seeking to escalate their abilities. They seek the means to strike from afar as we and our Soviet counterparts did. They gain more knowledge and ability everyday and even the best minds cannot agree on exactly how close they really are to achieving the technology needed to bypass even the best border security. The border patrol cannot stop a missile launched from Iran, or as is even more probable, Venezuela as a proxy. Yes our southern cities are with in range of such a launch and they have demonstrated this ability in Iran with their current inventory.
Paul's position is more than just about Iraq, it is an entire isolationist, non interventionist approach that in no way fits the realities of 21st security. We can argue the issues of Iraq until we pass out, but there are even bigger issues at stake here.
I grew up under the same threat you did, I studied it in college and debated it with many in my day. If you cannot realize the difference now I am sorry.
You call us wimps, so be it, but at least we are not fools.
Well said.
I can’t believe how many people are pretending you can negotiate with religious fanatics.
A religious fanatic by definition believes that by entering ‘negotiations’ with the implication of ‘compromise’ he’s committing a sin against his or her ‘God’.
bin Laden in the last two weeks just stated our only options are to ‘end democracy and convert to Islam’ (rough paraphrase).
I sincerely doubt any candidate, not even Ron Paul would go along with the Democracy part....he might be willing to kneel five times a day facing Mecca, however.
Not me. And because I say that plainly, according to the bin Laden’s of the world I have to be executed in the name of ‘Allah’.
I don’t understand how it is so many find this difficult to realize, and or admit.
I lived two years in a police state [Communist Poland]. The United States of America is not a police state by anyone's measure. You looney tune Paulistas are prone to hyperbole. You have to leave your mother's basement and get out more in the real world.
Normal everyday American’s see no impact what so ever. There maybe one or two exceptions, but there were those before the act as well. We have given up no real liberties, but as you experienced in Poland, reality and fantasy are very different things.
I am a grandfather of five you blithering idiot.
I'm sick & tired of these wimps trading my wealth & liberty to buy themselves a false sense of security. Nice to see there's a few men left who think the same way.
I'm sick & tired of these wimps trading my wealth & liberty to buy themselves a false sense of security. Nice to see there's a few men left who think the same way.
How'd he get elected to 10 terms in Congress then?
The big issue is our security.
Paul supports border security, immigration reform, and a strong national defense with a missile defense system.
He does’nt get it!
Actually, it's you who don't get it.
Any cheap so-called conservative candidate will talk about tax cuts and fiscal responsibility.
Uh, Paul has always advocated entire departments to be eliminated and wants the IRS abolished. Let me repeat that: Entire departments gone and the IRS abolished. That's far more than the tax cut crumbs and lip service paid to limited gov't the other candidates are doing.
Hey, Alan Keyes has made his pitch for President.
I don't care about Keyes.
Then you have no excuse for being a blithering idiot. Are you suffering from Alzheimer’s or dementia?
Why do I waste my time in here ? A rhetorical, but valid question, seems to me.
/s/ Captain Daniel K. Pope IV, USN (Ret)
Hmmm...
Then why are our borders an absolute free for all, with millions entering our country illegally, while our own government aids and abets this violent illegal invasion?
Because he wants to abolish the Dept of Education? And the IRS? Is that what makes him "cuckoo"? I'm sure Hillary thinks that's cuckoo, but I don't.
Is it because it lets the federal government throw people in jail without habeus corpus?
In a close study of the underpinnings of Sam Huntington’s “Clash” — and associated readings of Bernard Lewis, Paul Johnson and others, I have come to the following conclusions:
1. The United States is in its waning phase of power. I suspect we peaked just about the time I was trying to teach my girls to use a hula hoop — and was chalking up my first few hundred carrier landings...about 1960.
2. Mankind is tribal. No global institution nor organization will be able to sustain its governance over man’s cultural and religions beliefs over the long term.
3. At this juncture, The West is entering a sustained global conflict with Islam. Western Democracy is threatened as it never was by National Socialism nor Communism, due to the magnitude of the player populations; the communications/transportation revolutions; and the multi-faceted aspect of the threat.
It is my position that we address this threat head-on — or by acceleration of our civilizational sine curve — facilitate our own ultimate demise.
Our choice, is it not?
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.