Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NCSteve
"One of these days all of you so-called "conservatives" who support worship the lying socialist who currently occupies the White House..."

I worship Christ crucified. I worship no man. I support anyone who takes the WoT to the enemy. I'm sufficiently learned to know that war is not easy. War provides suffering and death. But there are times when war is the only possible response to those who wish us dead. And what seems 'un-winnable' to us today may become success tomorrow if the proper effort is applied, and those efforts are supported by the country as a whole.

As to Mr. Paul. Had he made himself 'not present' during the vote on the non-binding resolution I'd have been far more comfortable with him. At least it would have respected his so-called principles you libertarians constantly remark on. However, to vote for a non-binding resolution, knowing that it is nothing but a no confidence vote on the efforts our military are engaged in, is in my mind despicable. If these people don't want the Iraq conflict to continue, then vote to cut off funding. You, and all the others who hate Mr. Bush, support a vote to cut off funding. Stand up for your beliefs. Don't try to couch your beliefs in a support for the troops while back stabbing them with ridiculous non-binding resolutions. I have more respect for the likes of Senator Feingold, who's opposition to the war has been consistent, than to those who claim sincerity on the WoT yet vote against funding (as Paul has) and support worthless yet meaningful non-binding resolutions. If this is being principled, then we are all in desperate straits.

Regarding the 'lying socialist who currently occupies the White House'; answer me this: Did you vote for him? If so, wasn't that vote a sign of support? If not, whom did you vote for?

490 posted on 02/21/2007 6:03:38 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies ]


To: bcsco
I have more respect for the likes of Senator Feingold, who's opposition to the war has been consistent, than to those who claim sincerity on the WoT yet vote against funding (as Paul has) and support worthless yet meaningful non-binding resolutions. If this is being principled, then we are all in desperate straits.

Ron Paul has opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. He has taken Bush to task repeatedly for lying about his position on "nation building" and has continuously chastised him for deceiving people like you into believing that the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation is permissible under our Constitution. Ron Paul has never "claimed sincerity" on any war on terror because he, like a lot of us (growing numbers every day), knows that you can't declare war on an idea or an inanimate object. He realizes that a war on terror is just as stupid, vain, and empty as a war on drugs or a war on poverty and that it is nothing more than political rabble-rousing. He has said all this repeatedly and if you bothered to look into any of this instead of taking the easy road and simply believing what the party machine tells you, you would have known this before you made such a silly statement.

Ron Paul had the guts to vote on a measure before the whole House and chose not to take the cowardly route of voting "present" or even worse, absenting himself from the floor. Those tactics are symptomatic of the degenerate evil that pervades our government. Paul looks at votes in the House as requiring a yes or no answer. He voted his conscience in accordance with his oath of office. You don't like how he voted, like so many of the other lemmings on this forum, but you cannot characterize his vote as unprincipled.

Regarding the 'lying socialist who currently occupies the White House'; answer me this: Did you vote for him? If so, wasn't that vote a sign of support? If not, whom did you vote for?

No, I did not vote for Bush. I mostly abstained in the last election, but of the votes I cast, most were for Libertarians. The GOP has become the home for socialists and fascists of all stripes. The idiots who preached the "big tent" have won and now get to live with the fruits of their victory: irrelevance. George Bush is the worst President to hold office in my recollection of political involvement (which goes all the way back to 1972, by the way). He has managed to destroy the remnants of the Reagan Revolution, he and the stinking neocons have put the GOP on the road to destruction, his tenure in office has been marked by lies and incompetence. I don't know if our republic can recover from the damage he has done to it in six short years.

Maybe Ron Paul's candidacy will wake Republicans up and set them on the road to recovery. This really is their last chance. If they don't wake up, we are in for a long, painful ride down the dead-end road to socialism, with the Bush-Clinton oligarchy holding the reigns.

492 posted on 02/21/2007 6:38:43 AM PST by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson