Posted on 10/02/2007 1:39:05 PM PDT by mnehring
Someone who doesn't understand politics. Big business is the biggest promoter of big government.
Perhaps you can explain how calling for defense of our borders is anti-American. Better yet maybe you can explain how calling for trade with all and talks with all is an isolationist policy. Isolationism, contrary to Dr. Paul's detractors, is not opening up trade with all nations.
I wanted to wait and see if anyone caught up on the marketing aspect..
What has really surprised me more than anything is the downright nastiness of the anti-Paul folks here on FR. You don’t even see such nastiness towards the Beast here.
Calling for it, yet voting against it is called being a typical establishment politician who says one thing and does another. Anti-American was referring to Paul's voting against funding our troops in the middle of battle, blaming us for 9.11, blame us for creating terrorists, blame us for blowback, and accuse us of staging another 'Gulf of Tonkin' event with Iran. But you knew that.. you were creating a false relationship between the anti-American comment and immigration is a typical attempt to change direction or obsuficate the issue.
Wow so many RNC talking points with so little substance (many of which have already been discussed and discounted, but you knew that already...). But hey you got to run with what brought you to the track eh?
But you knew that.. you were creating a false relationship between the anti-American comment and immigration is a typical attempt to change direction or obsuficate the issue.
As you know he stands for a strong defense, which would include the military. But talk about obfuscating the issue....Republicans now define 'defense' as the right to pre-emptively attack anyone and everyone if that nation represents a 'threat', which is to be defined by talking heads by using the most inflammatory language possible...
The Leftist beast’s turn will come... after first dealing with the Left’s favorite “Republican.”
Again, I’d be happy to take your bet if you want to bet that Paul will run. He won’t. The irony, of course, is that many here who claim to deplore another Perot would instantly jump to a third party if Paul was nominated by the GOP. They would do this even if it threw the election to Hillary. Unlike Paul, the Paul haters wouldn’t hesitate for a minute to be :”spoliers” if they lost.
Sure. 37 percent of the voters in exit polls listed the war as the main reason why they voted Democrat. Just google “exit poll” “2006” Was the war the only reason? Of course not but it was significant enough to make the difference. But heh....if you want to watch President Hillary on your T.V. for the next four years....just keep the GOP status quo.
Sure. 37 percent of the voters in exit polls listed the war as the main reason why they voted Democrat. Just google “exit poll” “2006” Was the war the only reason? Of course not but it was significant enough to make the difference. But heh....if you want to watch President Hillary on your T.V. for the next four years....just keep the GOP status quo.
Thank you, very enlightening.
Another “entertainment” thread, I see. How’s this one going?
Geez, where’s the fun in that?
Thanks for underlining my point. It is precisely the issue and least if you want to live in the real world where elections are won and lost. Yes, the Democrats are indeed the main threat to the GOP, just like they were in 2006 when they won. I want to defeat them in 2008. A vote for using the same strategy that failed in 2006 is a vote for Hillary. A GOP led by Paul is her worst nightmare.
The other gap is how many said they voted because of the war, not because they wanted us out but because they wanted us to fight more aggressively. My in-laws fall into this category. They are moderate-left who voted for Bush but have gone back to Dem because they think we should do it all or nothing.
All valid questions but none provide any statistical evidence that I am wrong that the war shifted enough votes from the Republicans to the Democrats to shift the election. That is the issue. Do you have any evidence that the conventional wisdom is wrong and that the war did not cost the GOP the necessary votes to stay in power in 2006? For what it is worth, I am writing this as someone who exactly predicted on FR the post-election Senate lineup for 2006. Since you think I’m all wet on this, I am curious to hear what your predication was at that time.
Never mind he didn’t put up a proposal to shut down these programs..
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.