Fan mail received from a Ron Paul booster (Edited)

Email ^ | 7-17-07 | NA

[mvpel]

You’re quite right, of course - the “shores of Tripoli” refers to a corrupt Muslim piracy operation funded by Muslim nations in Thomas Jefferson’s times. The only reason they didn’t attack the new American mainland back then is that it took too long to get across the Atlantic for their hedonistic tastes.

The next time I meet Ron Paul, I’ll be sure to discuss John Quincy Adams’ report to the Continental Congress about the Barbary States.

[Elyse]

It has been my understanding that he would pass requests for funding on to the appropriate committee but that he would vote against the appropriations bill. I can support that position.

Huh? You can support him requesting pork and then voting against the final bill even though he knows it's just a hollow vote against it and the bill is going to pass and give him the pork he requested? Unbelievable.

If he was seriously against something he would never pass the request for it to the appropriation committee. You must be smokin' the same weed Paul is smokin' if you think that's all fine and dandy.

[doug from upland]

Make him understand the threat and perhaps people will give him more credibility. It’s a little more serious now. During the time of the Barbary pirates, they didn’t have the potential to acquire nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. But they haven’t changed. The Muslims have always wanted us to convert or die.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I think Ron Paul would espouse a meaner, yet less publicly robust approach to fanatics who would seek our death and demise. He is not at all bout giving into the general demands of religious fanatics. Ultimately it is not wise to place our trust in any human being for protection from enemies, but when we do use our resources for defense, we ought to use them wisely - something our big government seems unable to accomplish.

I wonder if we are not in many ways duplicating and expanding a tax and spend mentality among religious fanatics who don’t give a rat’s ass about freedom as we attempt to stabilize Iraq.

When I say a “meaner” approach to fanatical enemies, I mean learning about them, infiltrating, and neutralizing in a manner that strikes fear into any potential followers. It can be done without sending in whole armies and attempting to set up little Americas all around the world. This seems to be the lines along which Ron Paul is thinking, and I do not think them unreasonable or unpopular, provided he is properly understood.

[doug from upland]

re: I think Ron Paul would espouse a meaner, yet less publicly robust approach to fanatics who would seek our death and demise.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That’s pretty funny doublespeak and reminds me of Spinal Tap. With their popularity waning, they claimed to be “playing to a more selective audience.” Sorry, but Ron Paul fatally wounded himself in the debate. Not more than 2% of the population will ever trust him to defend this nation. But you can keep on spinning it for him if you like. He is playing to a more selective electorate.

[Fester Chugabrew]

He is playing to a more selective electorate.

The subject was, I think, his ability to uphold national defense, not the size of his audience. My consideration of a candidate extends beyond his popularity to his ability to uphold and defend our Constitution, and Ron Paul generally seems to be on the mark in that regard.

[doug from upland]

The Spinal Tap reference had nothing to do with with the popularity of Ron Paul. I used it because the spin was just as silly as what you had created.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Well, it is hardly spin to assert that Ron Paul is as interested as any other American in bringing our enemies to justice. There are ways to do so without sending armies and attempting to establish our way of life in the midst of pigs who despise it.