Posted on 08/13/2011 10:01:23 AM PDT by chatter4
Great video, well worth hearing. Ron Paul's remarks about Iran, followed by commentaries of Levin, Rush and Beck all in one place.
Could you please explain Paul’s hatred of the Jews and Lincoln? He is a F-up.
Yes, the country was the worse for it, if you really believe in conservative values.
Maybe we should elect someone to change that direction?
And why even have a 10th Amendment if you want a centralized government?
You either believe in the 10th or you don't. But you can't have it both ways.
It’s not just a matter of terrorism, though. Iran is definitely working on the bomb, and the Saudis have already made it know that they want a bomb to counter Iran. This region is going to have an uncontrolled arms race, among dictators and madmen.
A lot of folks here are more than happy to look the other way at initiatives that favor big government, as long as the man in the White House has an 'R' by his name. The Bushes are the first example that comes to mind... good men, certainly better than anyone the Dems had to offer, but not advocates for limited government by any means.
But to bring the discussion back home... what is it exactly that we stand for here at FR? Not the Republican brand alone, certainly, except inasmuch as it represents something we can believe in, namely the set of principles that secure and preserve our God-given liberties. Ron Paul will never be president, and that doesn't bother me at all; I don't think he would have made a very good one. But I'm glad Ron Paul exists, because he helps us to keep our eye on the ball.
Good post.
Pretty sad that it needed to be pointed out though, especially here on FR.
In my opinion, Ron Paul has more in common with our forefathers than any Presidential candidate that I have listened to in the past 20 years. Whether he’s talking about the central bank, fiat currency, or “foreign entanglements”, his positions are consistent with the positions of our forefathers. I’ll have no problem voting for him or Michele Bachmann. That being said, I was not at all displeased with the Iowa straw poll results yesterday. It was a good day for conservatism.
Ron Paul stands for true conservative originalist principles and he always has. But he seems to lack any common sense or wisdom about the real world and human nature. He’s like a brand new car with no steering gear in it.
Or you could say he's like a really cool Google Earth map of the Constitution. But every time you touch the mouse to use the map it goes to blue screen. After a while he re-boots, with a lot of fits and starts, but as soon as you touch the mouse it's back to blue screen.
I know one thing though, we all should remember who the enemy is in the white hut.
It seems that every candidate we have has its own crowd of rabid naysayers here.
Obviously we're never going to get the perfect candidate but we're going to have to get behind some one so we can get this marxist out of office.
I can't even imagine a second obama term. He would be free to go so far to the left it would be the end of this Country. Literally.
I also wonder just what the heck all of his tzar's have been up to all of this time.
Have they been busy writing tyrannical policies to implement when TSHTF, or perhaps to be implemented in his second term if he gets it?
Too scary to even ponder, I believe he must be defeated at all costs.
“I brought up two point in in post #33 and here at 79 posts not one you lazy mfrs has addressed a either one so don’t give me that sorry excuse for a rebuttal.”
Uh...I’m a slower reader, but you’ll see I replied to you on this (in agreement :-) in #167.
I assume you were addressing RP supporters, though. The reason they hadn’t rebutted you on that (as well as other facts we’ve brought up) is because they have no logical or sensible answer. Don’t confuse them with the facts :-)
I probably didn't see post #167 when there were only 79 posts on the thread. ;^) lol
“He also refuses to write off the irresponsible kook vote. Ron Paul gets a ton of cult like support from the Alex Jones segment of the populace.”
Yes, and to get all that kook support, you have to speak Kookese (which may well be his native language). But the trade-off, of course, is losing the intelligent voters.
Oh well - the kooks are louder, rowdier, and get more attention from the media anyway.
“How is he “straight up Libertarian”?
He is pro-life.”
And he’s SUPPOSED to be pro-life because of the Hippocratic oath he took as a doctor. A pure Libertarian can still be pro-life, but he doesn’t want government involved in the abortion issue. Nevertheless, a pure Libertarian is NOT a Conservative.
I agree, and don’t know any Repubs (including Cain) who don’t favor at least auditing and accountability of the Fed.
Glad you liked it. I try not to abuse the opportunity of posting to all, but in this case I thought it would be appreciated by, and useful to, conservatives who oppose RP, and something that his “fans” NEED to read - although you’re right, it will probably fall on deaf ears. But if just one had an open mind and would ponder the article’s logic, guess it would’ve been worth risking the flames of those who don’t :-)
“Can’t we build a strong national defense without occupation”
I’m so sick of hearing RP & Co. use the term Occupation, trying to equate our military in other countries (who WANT our protection and often as part of agreements, NATO treaties, etc.) with what the Nazis did in France, Poland, etc. Now THAT was Occupation - and definitely unwanted, to put it mildly. In some if not many cases, it’s also in our own national security interests (not just that of our allies) to maintain strategic bases because of their proximity to hostile enemies. For those who haven’t gotten the memo, there are really bad guys in the world - not all sweetness and light.
What we SHOULD be doing, particularly in financially solid, or resource-rich, countries is what Trump’s been saying - charge them for that help and protection rather than doing it for free!
No.
This is not 1947 anymore and Ron Paul doesn't know that. Like it or not; we will be involved around the globe; or our nation will shrink away.
I see your point, but the Saudi’s don’t object to our being there. My point is that they (the extremists) want a global caliphate with dhimmitude for us non-muslims. It’s not our being over there that ignites them... it’s our not being muslim like them, and the fact that our “American culture” has thrived and seen unprecedented success while they are stuck in the 14th century. We had nobody in Iraq and Afghanistan when we were attacked on 9/11/01. Our presence in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait was limited. I really believe that we would have been hit regardless for the reasons I’ve indicated above.
Unlike Ron Paul, I really DO want to end abortion and these other perversions posing as marriage. You deal with the system you have. You cannot tie both of our hands and both of our feet behind our backs while arming the social revolutionaries with the political/SCOTUS equivalent of nukes.
On the 10th, Paulie wants us restrained by it and our enemies empowered by it. He is blatantly dishonest as usual to describe his delusions in such a way as to call himself pro-life. I want a centralized government on foreign policy, trade, military policy and a bunch of other things. So did the Founders. Also bear in mind that the Founders were remarkable men but they did not have a crystal ball to see the specific circumstances of our time. I doubt that their wildest imaginations would have foreseen legalized abortion at all much less on demand or "marriage" of Adam and Bruce or genuflecting before Al Qaeda for that matter and they certainly did not write a constitution to guarantee as legal rights such evil insanity. (There I go again!!! I am SOOOOO judgmental! You betcha!)
Ron Paul is an airhead who appeals to the "I gotta be me" crowd and he is a dishonest airhead or the least mentally capable article in shoe leather in the entire American gummint.
Maybe we SHOULD elect someone to change the direction of gummint and stop the social revolution but it is a lead pipe cinch that the someone is not the Galveston porkmeister, selective 10th Amendment social revolutionary poseur and surrendermonkey.
You either believe in the obvious truth or you don't but YOU can't have it both ways. I am a recovering attorney. I represented without fee 1100 people arrested (most on felony charges) for sitting in at abortion mills, desterilizing the instruments, pouring raw eggs into the suction machines. About 30 were convicted, mostly of the non-criminal equivalent of parking tickets (infractions) and none of felonies. I absolutely resent Ron Paul's rank dishonesty on the pro-life issue. I don't care about his personal opinions. I care about his ACTIONS as a public official. He wants to play philosopher king while another 50 million babies are slaughtered and counting. He is a rank phony. Paul hides behind the 10th Amendment and SCOTUS in Roe vs. Wade hid behind the 9th Amendment. Those two amendments have generally been ignored for over 200 years except to facilitate baby-killing and perversion. NO THANKS!
If the little twerp REALLY wants to defend the 10th Amendment consistently, he would have to advocate the complete abolition of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and about 95% of the federal government's programs. However nice an idea that might seem to many conservatives as to many fedgov programs, if paleoPaulie were candid and honest, the voting public would stomp his sorry backside into the dustbin of history. Paul's sophomoric nonsense may just thrill the college kiddies who support him since he seems to promise legal drugs, sex however they please with whomever or whatever they please in whatever numbers, abortion to keep their life options open without forgoing sex until marriage, no personal responsibility just a cornucopia of "rights" subsidized by others and no more of those just icky wars that make their empty little heads hurt and no more bills for same.
For nearly fifty years, I have been a movement conservative. I have never seen such a disgrace as Ron Paul sullying the name of the movement by calling himself conservative. He is a libertarian and not a conservative and he makes it up as he goes along. I was a Libertarian Party State officer as a college kid back before we invented the wheel but then I grew up. He is 76 and by 2016 he will be eighty. He has never grown up. Maybe he can be packed off to Sunnyvale Farm in a straitjacket by 2016. You well know that he will NEVER be POTUS.
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.