Posted on 07/01/2008 2:19:51 PM PDT by mnehring
According to Ron Paul Henchman and alleged erstwhile ghostwriter Lew Rockwell (broke link, Lew Rockwell not welcome on Free Republic), you can blame Dicky Flatt’s buddy, Phil Gramm: …I was involved in that campaign, when Reagan broke his moronic “11th Commandment” to speak ill of fellow Republican Ron Paul, and such figures as Karl Rove and Paul Weyrich conspired to wage a very nasty campaign against Ron. In true Republican dirty-tricks fashion, Ron’s campaign office was even burglarized and his mailing list and other documents stolen. The power-elite had annointed (sic) the Philster, and would brook no grassroots opposition. Ron, of course, ran a hard and heroic campaign, complete with brilliant antiwar ads.
Wow! Bush’s Brain was controlling the party way back then? It also seems a bit ironic for Rockwell to call Reagan’s 11th Commandment “moronic” then whine about him breaking it. Then Llewellyn all but states it was Rove and Weyrich that broke into Paul’s campaign office, a pretty bold claim. And what war was Paul running anti-war ads against in 1984?
The Rockster was responding to comments made by Spencer J. Hahn on why he can never forgive Gramm for stealing Ron Paul’s chance of serving in the Senate alongside Barry Goldwater: Let us not forget that it was that Democrat turncoat, Phil Gramm, who defeated Ron Paul in the 1984 Republican Senate primary. Had Ron Paul won the primary, he would have won the general election, and become the true conscience of the Senate. I often wonder what would have been if Ron Paul had been in the Senate to filibuster every unconstitutional bill. He almost certainly would have been a presidential candidate (as Gramm was in 1996), and likely would have been taken more seriously by the MSM.
So there you have it, folks. The reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously is because Phil Gramm beat him in the primary in 1984. Oh, and Halliburton.
I thought Libertarians were all about personal responsibility?
Who is Chuck Baldwin? Is he a 9/11 Troofer or the Constitution Party candidate or both? Not that anyone of normal sensibilities will know or care even after the election.
That's a real plan you got there. If Obama is elected, job #1 will become the political destruction of the pseudolibertarian uberfussy purists and the paleotraitors.
Fred Thompson is a team player. PaleoPaulie is an eccentric moonbat and trasonous weasel. Fred understands that he would owe pro-lifers and act accordingly in court appointments. As you may recall, he was enthusiastic in support of Roberts and Alito. PaleoPaulie wants to babble on in futility as a wannabe philosopher king as though that were an excuse to do nothing.
It really overshadowed a few good positions he had.
Use the 14th Amendment (already on the books), and the Fifth Amendment (likewise), define the unborn as human beings by statute or by SCOTUS decision and cram protection of the innocent unborn down the throats of the pro-aborts including your precious libertoonian party as the slaughter of the unborn has been crammed down America's throat for 35 years by our nation's elitist internal enemies. It is not for nothing that the LP cannot muster 1% of the vote and that paleoPaulie was so easily marginalized. Americans know better in each case.
I am with Dubya (however flawed he may be on occasion) and against Paul and that ain't gonna change.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Added emphasis is mine)
From Webster's 1828 Dictionary:
Posterity:
1. Descendants; children, children's children, &c. indefinitely; the race that proceeds from a progenitor. The whole human race are the posterity of Adam.
2. In a general sense, succeeding generations; opposed to ancestors.
It is axiomatic that one of the "blessings of liberty" is life as referenced by the inalienable rights endowed by our Creator as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. And by using the word "posterity" the Founding Fathers made it clear that the fully intended to secure life for those generations not yet born.
In what alternate Universe are you living in?
Of all the things you've said up to date, this one pegged the BS meter...
This isn't rocket surgery...
I would support an amendment, I just don’t think it’s necessary. I believe that the Constitution ALREADY protects life and clearly establishes that the ONLY conditions under which a life can legally be taken is upon a grand jury indictment and conviction by a jury of one’s peers.
The Dems didn't think it was necessary to pass an Amendment to enact Gun Control due to Art 1: Sec 8.
Pass an Amendment stating it clearly and without inference. Even Jefferson would approve.
Nonetheless, on the issue of abortion I will refer you to the Sanctity of Life Act introduced into Congress by Ron Paul which would have declared that human life begins at conception thus nullifying Roe v Wade. Sadly, very few of those supposedly pro-life Republicans supported the act.
Possibly just possibly because he’s an anti-American nutjob? Nah, that couldn’t be it.
So you would support anti-Americans like Paul, Barr, and Baldwin who want to tuck tail and run from Iraq over a true American hero like John McCain who is steadfast in his determination to see the war fought through to victory?
It all depends on McCain’s definition of victory. His website doesn’t provide much information other than soundbite style rhetoric. If you have a link to a more detailed plan I would be interested in seeing it.
This war is very costly and given the economic crisis we are facing I highly doubt we can stay there much longer. Like alot of Americans, I am not too thrilled with our country borrowing money and devaluing the dollar to nation build in Iraq. So I am open to the opinions on the war of those who support limited government, since I agree with them on so many other issues. On the other hand, I disagree with McCain fundamentally on nearly every issue, therefore I find his views on Iraq to be suspect.
Have you noticed that paleoPaulie poses regularly for holy pictures as a "constitutionalist" which presumably includes limiting the fedgov to its specifically granted powers (see Amendment 10). Yet Paulie becomes the paleoporkmeister when it comes to earmarking his district's special interests like subsidizing the shrimping industry or did I miss the shrimping industry clause in the grants of powers to Congress? Or the nursing scholarships for TX-14 only or the trolley subsidies for Galveston or.........
How can there be a serious discussion of issues when one side takes Ron Paul seriously as anything but Al Qaeda's man in America and a wannabe philosopher king with utterly no accomplishments?
So you say but it is true nonetheless and I was a guest speaker for them well after the resignation, debating a national nominee who was reduced to tears when I did not bash her for her publicly confessed abortion. She was a nice lady but had been wrong on the issue. Being a grown up is not so bad. You should try it some time.
I’m honestly having a difficult time making sense of what you write. Are you trying to be funny or do you genuinely have a point to make?
1. Ron Paul is a treasonous weasel in time of war who is also a mouthpiece for our enemies (Al Qaeda, et al.).
2. Ron Paul is a phony who regularly poses for holy pictures as a pro-lifer and accomplishes absolutely nothing pro-life as his libertarian backers prefer.
3. Ron Paul is a fake, a phony and a fraud on spending issues and "constitutionalism" as proven by his addiction to earmarks as pork for his TX-14 constituents.
4. Ron Paul is an eccentric moonbat who allies with 9/11 Troofers and other nutcases in his opposition to this nation doing what needs doing to Islamofascism in the wake of 9/11.
5. The foregoing and much more is necessarily implied in the term paleoPaulie since "paleo""conservatives" are deluded eccentrics taking the good name of conservative in vain and trying to substitute peacecreepism for manly foreign policy. See The Rockford Institute, antiwar.com, Justin(e) Raimondo, Llewellyn (sp.?) Rockwell, et al., who serve as the modern Neville Chamberlain types of our time, thankfully without danger of being elected decision makers in any meaningful sense. Isolationism and cowardice and faux "constitutionalism" are not part of conservatism.
If that isn't clear enough, hit the library for books by Frank Meyer, James Burnham, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, and other actual conservatives. You will, no doubt, find their work a real education and an eye-opening one at that. Honest biographies of Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, George Patton, Douglas MacArthur and the like would help you. You might run the risk of accessing papalencyclicals.net for John Paul II's Gospel of Life, Leo XIIIs Rerum Novarum, Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi Domenici Gregis and Lamentabile Sane, or whatever else you might like going back to about the 12th century, all in English.
I have a lot of points to make and I make them. If I happen to be funny, that's a bonus.
Hey, so vote for him. Write his name in. Draw a picture of him. Whatever. He’s still a nut.
He’s not running any longer. Regardless, and I read the diatribe posted above, I would take a Paul over a statist like McCain anyday of the week. I don’t agree with Paul on every issue, but on the fundamental belief (i.e. that government is the problem, not the solution) I agree with him. McCain and the rest of the GOP leadership do not hold to that core belief.
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.