Posted on 03/28/2007 12:59:01 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
Yeah...
"Name even two Congressmen, out of 435, who consistently vote against EVERY Unconstitutional program! Just TWO, I dare you!"
"Ron Paul."
"Really? Um... so, what are their last names?"
bah-dum-bump!
Smart enough to realize it. There is no way Paul is going to be nominated let alone elected. Why not expend energies on someone that has a chance..may a little name recognition.
Doesn't matter. Very few people outside of FR has the faintest clue as to who it is. His votes on what he considers to be unconstitutional legislation is a big whoop, that a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee. Like I said he has no chance.
Most of the 100 million voters can care less how that Paul fellar voted or what the Paulettes say. Paul couldn't carry Texas as proved by his Lib run in the late 80s.
Already 4th-place amongst declared Republican Candidates. Already leaving Hunter, Tancredo, Brownback, Huckabee, Gilmore, and Tommy Thompson behind.
This is just beginning.
Bookmarked
That Paul did not have the courage of his misguided resistance to war to stand up to a hurricane of public enthusiasm for striking back against the Islamofascisti for 9/11 proves little. That he wants to force American troops to flee from the field of battle for want of financial support in his petulant opposition to manly foreign policy proves a lot more.
You are wasting your time if you expect me to give any quarter whatsoever much less apologies for telling the truth as to anyone (Ron Paul) posing as a conservative who acts in the interests of the enemies of our civilization. Dubya made a major mistake by not relentlessly attacking the enemies of this war as the enemies of our country that they are. They are nothing but the modern equivalent of the anti-American trash who gutted the Vietnam War.
Also Ron Paul may be a pro-lifer but he is too busy being a a self-appointed "constitutionalist" cartoon figure to get anything accomplished in the way of "fighting" for pro-life, much less retaliating against those Islamofascists who live to attack America. Paul is as nutty as a fruitcake and the pseudo-right's equivalent of the late Henry Gonzalez, totally in love with his own eccentric opinions and boring the heck out of anyone watching special orders on C-SPAN with his irrelevant fantasies.
If Ron Paul is the answer, it must have been an uncommonly idiotic question.
Given your lack of respect for Dr. Paul's work in Congress, I could see why you would want to minimize public awareness. There are so many CURRENT news articles, videos, blog postings, forum entries, and opinions that I do not have time to track them all.
A more accurate statement would be:
Very few news sources outside of FR have the faintest inclination to cover a candidate like Ron Paul who would restore constitutional integrity to the federal government.
I expect this to change as the liberals controlling the media would need to retool their spin machines in an attempt to counter or to prosper from Ron Paul's growing popularity.
Who's this Paul Ron guy some people keep talking about?
Yes!!!!
It will be funny to watch.
Conservatives are jumping ship the rest will just drown.
The first 1100 have already taken a stand.
http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/
But you haven't been telling the Truth about Ron Paul's response to 9/11. You've been telling Lies.
You know that Ron Paul voted to fight against "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons". Yet you refuse to retract your Lies about Ron Paul's record on the 9/11 response.
By your willingness to stubbornly remain in a state of Bearing False Witness, you are demonstrating that you certainly don't need to join my denomination in order to apostasize from Christ's Church. In willingly continuing to Bear False Witness, you're accomplishing your apostasy just fine right where you stand.
He's the guy Ronald Reagan chose to lead his electoral delegation from Texas.
 |
I'm voting for former Vietnam Combat Flight Surgeon, and Leader of Ronald Reagan's Electoral Delegation from Texas: In 2008, I'm Voting for RON PAUL! |
 |
You can repost your delusions as often as you please but your repetitions will not change the fact that Paul is a paleowhatever who has allied with the antiAmerican antiwar left even if he poses as a "constitutionalist" in the process. Nor will your posts affect anything other than the reduction of the respect I used to prematurely have for you.
If I think you have any business sitting in moral judgment over me or any other Catholics, I shall be sure to let you be the first to know. Again, don't hold your breath. Therefore you can cut the pseudopious facade of making believe that assertion of truth somehow amounts to false witness, an argument, ummmm, "predestined" to failure.
OP: That's not the Truth.
Truth isn't really the issue here. This is more a matter of opinion meeting over-the-top rhetoric. Does Ron Paul really believe "nothing is worth fighting for"? That is BlackElk's inference from Mr. Paul's Iraq policy, but it is rooted in a fundamental assumption of bad faith.
This is the big problem in political discourse today. If I disagree with you, I must be evil. To hear from some uber-Republicans, if I think Bush mishandled the war because of an ideological blindness, I must be a traitor or a troll. I've gotten suspended for articulating that belief. It's alright, because I catch hell at school for articulating a pro-military viewpoint.
The thing is, Mr. Paul holds the viewpoint that we should leave Iraq. I believe that to be a disastrous policy, but do not doubt his good faith in holding it. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Fabricated words do not qualify as truth.
Good post.
I'm befuddled and somewhat disappointed at your own support for Giuliani, but I understand your reasoning therefore. And I'm able to reject your conclusions, even strenuously, without attributing malign intent to you personally.
For that matter, speaking not only of fellow FReepers but also of the candidates themselves, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to misrepresent the facts on Mr. Giuliani in any way: if he has cut taxes and reduced crime, it should be admitted that he has done so; if he has advocated gun control and legal partial-birth abortions, it should be admitted that he has done so. I'm content to let his record speak for itself, unbesmirched by fraudulent exaggeration or outright lies, and let each voter decide for himself whether or not they find him to be a fit candidate.
By this statement, you admit that you were lying about Ron Paul's response to 9/11.
As I said before: say whatever you want about Ron Paul's votes on Iraq, but retract the factually false statements you made with regard to Ron Paul's response to 9/11.
Do that, and I'll retract my charge that you are Bearing False Witness. Otherwise, as long as you refuse to retract the factually false statements you made regarding Ron Paul's response to 9/11 -- which your own bolded statement above illustrates you KNOW to be Factually False -- then my charge stands: You are Violating the Commandment against the Bearing of False Witness, and continuing to do so Knowingly and Willfully. That constitutes an unrepented Mortal Sin.
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.