Replies

I am glad you stand so staunchly for your chosen candidate. I respectfully disagree with basically everything you have said about Ron Paul. It is true that conservatives have been discussing these topics for ages and that Ron Paul has been there all his life. But there is where it stops.

As I have said previously I agree with many of Dr Paul's statements and beliefs ... however his unwillingness to address the greatest threat to this nation at the present time, radical Islam, and his willingness to erect the walls of isolationist policy around this nation leaves us vulnerable to attack and destruction.

This same isolationism leaves us with a weakened national defense and therefore removes him from the 'old Taft-Goldwater-Reagan wing of the GOP' who stood for a strong national defense. A strong national defense can not be achieved in a vacuum. These same isolationist policies does nor reinforce our sovereignty ... it degrades it.

As far as courting him and his talking at the Convention that remains to be seen. The candidates and the Party are distancing themselves from Ron Paul and his statements to back track and welcome him with open arms would be an affront to many in the Party he has already pushed away by his statements.

The return to the mainstream conservative ideals must be accomplished, possible step-by-step slowly, by a standard bearer that all Republicans can embrace and conservative Democrats. One so radical or revolutionary in forcing our own ideals down throats will not bring us closer to achieving our goals any sooner. One who refuses to see obvious threats will not move us closer to our ideals and beliefs either.

Ron Paul is not to be the conservative standard bearer and thanks to his zealousness he can not even be an adviser to the chosen candidate and continue to reinforce basic conservative values as he has in the past.

The greatest threat to our nation isn't isolationism, it's interventionism.

Most of our modern conflicts have been due to the meddling of the globalists who profit from financing wars. For instance, the trouble we're facing in Iran right now, can be traced back to Jimmy Carter's meddling.

Your assertion that isolationism weakens our defense is illogical. How does not spreading your military all over the world weaken it? How would staying out of the affairs of the middle east increase the threat? How does opening the borders to not only illegals, but middle easterners reduce the threat of terrorism? How do "Rules of engagement" help keep our military strong? Those are the policies that the globalists have followed and you see how unsuccessful they've been at keeping us safe. Yet, you oppose Ron Paul because he doesn't promise more of the same?

I can understand your opposition, but all Paul is doing is listening to the people. Personally, I would like our troops to stay for the time being, but unfortunately I don't speak for the millions of non-FReepers who want our troops to come home and stop meddling in the Middle East.

Paul supports a strong national defense and secure borders, so the notion that terrorists are going to come "over here" is laughable. We don't have the money for long-term overseas commitments.

Free Republic was my home for quite a while. I don’t know what I would have done without you during the 2000 Florida election vote counting antics pulled by Gore’s crowd.

But the Bush administration has greatly disappointed me over and over by their globalist nature and their invasion of Iraq when Scott Ritter and everyone who knew anything were saying don’t go..... Just the idea that Americans could watch ‘Shock and Awe’ bombing like a light show with oo’s and ah’s similar to Clinton bombing TV station in Serbia or their historic bridges with humans standing on them thinking it would protect the bridges.

And coming here to discuss these issues had left my non-interventionist stance under attack constantly — then I found Ron Paul’s campaign. I’ve been a libertarian for years, reading articles about how the market can beat any agency or program ever devised by the elites in DC. Republicans used to know that.

If Ron Paul were elected president, he would bring home not only troops from Iraq, but the 65,000 in Germany (why are we protecting Europe, we can’t afford it) and the 45,000 in Japan.. same question. and the ones in Korea after which probably they would unify (and not under the system of the North). Empires collapse from monetary system failure. Take a look at the dollar and you can see the problem.

I donated to Ron Paul on the 5th! .. He takes absolutely no special interest money. Unlike Bush, he would not propose treaties that supersede the Constitution giving the UN control of our oceans for goodness sake. Its time to kick out the stuffed shirts of the status quo and put a patriot in office.