Posted on 08/18/2007 1:36:47 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
Ron Paul received 216 votes for a commanding first-place finish in a straw poll today sponsored by the West Alabama Republican Assembly. Mitt Romney came in second with 14 votes.
The poll was open to Alabama residents.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.ronpaul2008.com ...
I’m a supporter of Ron Paul, just not a fan of his isolationist policies.
We need the middle to win and Ron Paul won’t get the middle. Dems will be able to exploit most of his positions and portray him as a wacko to the middle voter. A Ron Paul/Dem match up would guarantee a Democrat president.
I’d rather not take that chance with the upcoming election.
>> Where has Ron Paul made excuses for them or has said the actions were tolerable?
“seeking to understand why they hate us” is looking for excuses for their behavior. And putting the country’s head in the sand instead of combating their evil at the source is tolerating their actions (you can’t have it both ways). So is he saying Islamonazi barbarism is intolerable, but he’ll tolerate it anyway? Then he is a dangerous wimp. Otherwise, he finds their actions acceptable — i.e. tolerable. Which way do you want it? But again you can’t have it both.
>> Why hasn’t the border been closed to them? They’re in our engineering schools learning our technology to use against us. Why hasn’t the border been closed to Muslims?Are we at war or not?
Hey, believe me, I agree we ought to close the border TIGHT. But it’s not much of a selling point if I also have to buy all his other wrongheaded positions. Plus, I have yet to hear that RP would in fact close the border to muslims and kick all non-citizen muslims out of the country. Are you saying that’s his position? Source?
>> I’m not a big supporter of Ron Paul’s foreign policy, but he doesn’t get a fair shake around here a lot of times either.
Security is THE most important issue to me. I appreciate RP’s fiscal responsibility and a few of his other positions. “getting back in touch with the constitution” and all that would be just great. But RP’s misguided isolationism could get me KILLED. That’s really important for me to consider. ;-)
Yet, these supporters who can't let go of the validation they've received from this candidate, can't seem to grasp why the candidate is a lost cause with anyone outside of this tiny, hardcore, die-hard constituency.
This year, we seem to have more than one such candidate, and the bad feelings that will result once these candidates quit the race could very well give the dems the edge to win. It's like having two Buchanans and a couple of Perots on the Republican side of the race, and while it may be good to have a diversity of points of view represented, in a tight race it could mean doom. I could very easily see a number of sullen Paulists sitting out the election, giving the dem nominee the election.
Your are correct about the middle. Too many people are dependent on the nanny state.
Any “love” Libs show RP now is only because of his “war” ideas.
Non-sequitur. You asked me in post #114 what Paul would have done in response to 9/11. I gave you an answer. Paul would have either asked Congress for a formal declaration of war (again, instead of waiting for approval from the UN or Euroweenies) or he would have authorized a letter of marquis and reprisal. Although I disagree with the latter as the WOT should be fought with real troops instead of mercenaries, there wouldn't be any of this nation-building & establishing democracy in Iraq as it is now, at the expense of our soldier's lives.
But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that he believes we SHOULD be at war with — with what? — the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq? Radical Islam? What?
Newsflash. We wouldn't be at war with anyone. Radical Muslims here would be deported and our borders sealed under Paul (Keep in mind that the lunatic Paul supports border security and interior enforcement) and Muslims would be left in the Middle East to stew in their own fecal juices.
Are you kdding me? Paul has the middle locked up. He has all the swing, independents, small L libertarians, and folks who hate politics singing his tune. How will the Dims portray him as an anti-war wacko when the Dims themselves advocate withdrawal too, and with no specifics or timetables to boot! Give Paul credit for calling for an immediate withdrawal. I don't agree with Paul on this but at least he didn't BS the people about it. A Paul nomination could quite possibly sweep all 50 states.
These same folks are waking up to Paul's message though. They realize that the bills are going to come due sooner or later, and they'll get hit the hardest. The strength of Paul's support is due in part to the fact that he's not playing games like Mitt Romney is.
The others have been out there for many months now, building their bases. If Fred Thompson wants to be CIC then he had better show that he can COMMAND, way out in front on the issues as a LEADER, not just another also-ran nag left in the dust.
I never said DU supported his positions, just that they were his biggest supporters. They have their own reasons to support him and that is what my original comment was referring to.
I still don't see any major support from conservatives. That's my opinion on this issue and so far there is nothing that shows my position wrong.
>> Non-sequitur.
No. It was a polite way of calling BS. I don’t believe for a second RP really would have asked for a war declaration, and that goes double for Iraq. I think the pirate thing would be much more his style.
>> We wouldn’t be at war with anyone. Radical Muslims here would be deported and our borders sealed under Paul
Yes. Thank you for helping to make my own case.
>> Muslims would be left in the Middle East to stew in their own fecal juices.
Our European allies be damned? American citizens unable to travel out of the US because they’re being kidnapped right and left as part of Ron’s Muslim Stew? Our economy disrupted right and left? And — no matter how “sealed” the border gets, an unaffected Al Queda free to multiply and grow powerful and rich AND PERPETRATE EVER MORE HORRIFIC 9-11s because our POTUS is a head-in-the-sand isolationist who won’t take care of the problem at the source?
No thank you.
Uh, what do you think border security is?
And that's somehow Paul's fault, how?
The GOP doesn't own anyone's vote pal.
I know what kind of bodily orifice I would call you. ;-)
Yep, as your screen name or nick or whatever looks. Well done left handed thing. BooHaaa .... How do you spell “bad seed”?
>> Uh, what do you think border security is?
Nah, that flip comment won’t cut the mustard, persuasively speaking.
Everyone from George Bush to Teddy Kennedy to Jeff Sessions to Ron Paul to Hillary Clinton touts “border security”. And, although they are all saying something different, I believe each of them thinks s/he is improving “border security”.
Precisely what are the elements of Dr. Paul’s /plan/ for securing our borders (he /has/ a plan, doesn’t he?) and does it or does it not mention booting out all non-citizen muslims?
You avoided the topic and produced a non-sequitur. You asked what Paul would have done after 9/11 and I gave you an answer. Withdrawing from Iraq wasn't even mentioned until YOU brought it up later.
Yes. Thank you for helping to make my own case.
Hey, you're welcome. Because I'm sure you support a long-term committment in Iraq that involves billions of dollars a year while our troops get hit with car bombs while fixing Baghdad's infrastructure and such. Meanwhile the borders remain wide open and Muslims are allowed to come here by the thousands and expect Americans to submit to their repugnant lifestyle.
Our European allies be damned? American citizens unable to travel out of the US because they’re being kidnapped right and left as part of Ron’s Muslim Stew? Our economy disrupted right and left? And — no matter how “sealed” the border gets, an unaffected Al Queda free to multiply and grow powerful and rich AND PERPETRATE EVER MORE HORRIFIC 9-11s because our POTUS is a head-in-the-sand isolationist who won’t take care of the problem at the source?
And you don't think Paul would respond? Give me a break.
I very much appreciate your help. As I said, I like him. He is just the worst option. Honestly I lean Libertarian. The “Screen Name” says as much. He is just a moron. No touch to reality. If he gave us a solution, I would be willing to look at it. As is, he is sub par in his grasp of now.
His record on immigration and border security is just as good as Hunter's. I'd post the links but I'm going out to the bar shortly. Have fun!
““seeking to understand why they hate us” is looking for excuses for their behavior.”
I think we have a difference of opinion on what “understanding” means
“Hey, believe me, I agree we ought to close the border TIGHT. But it’s not much of a selling point if I also have to buy all his other wrongheaded positions. Plus, I have yet to hear that RP would in fact close the border to muslims and kick all non-citizen muslims out of the country. Are you saying that’s his position? Source?”
That’s my position. I can’t speak for RP. I hear the President talk about the war, but it has been waged like “No Win War 3”
“Security is THE most important issue to me.”
National security is very important, but so is individual liberty.
So, now you're saying the middle is his base and they are made up of wackos from the right and the left...right??
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.