Posted on 07/20/2007 12:19:50 AM PDT by John Farson
It comes right down to freedom. They want to go back to small government. Not smaller government. Small government as it was originally intended. And that is what really unites most of our support.
The word ‘freedom’ is a short-hand way of explaining Paul’s platform.
Paul supports a drastically reduced federal government- the elimination of the IRS, he believes state’s should be left to regulate abortion and marriage policies.
He questions many international organizations and agreements, such as the World Trade Organization, NAFTA and the country’s membership to the United Nations.
(Excerpt) Read more at nhpr.org ...
Your anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Ron Paul has received significant support from military personnel. Whether he is the top recipient is questionable. The donations themselves are real.
May the best candidate win!
I've seen up close how the media can skew anything it wants. There is no level to which they will not stoop.
I've noticed that Paul's fans use similar tactics to push their agenda.
Not buying any of it.
I'm not the one making personal attacks.
When Paul doesn't win the nomination, are you going to vote Republican in the Presidental Election?
Yea never mind he supported action in Afghanistan huh? While Bush fiddles our troops are being worn down from being over deployed. Rotations inside Iraq are longer as are what was standard 4 year active duty enlistments. But here is the problem. GW Bush does not know or understand how to fight a war. He wants to play social engineer to three tribes who have centuries of history of war with each other. He didn't want to end Iraq's future potential as a military threat good grief the man is rearming them and having them trained for the next Saddam.
Going after those responsible for 9/11 is one thing but please name me the Iraqis who were on those planes. Iraq could have been handled covertly. Saddam had no air force, not a real great army, no Navy, and we had their skies locked down.
If Bush wanted that war so blasted bad then you tell me why he didn't let the soldiers do their job and level it and be done with it? Instead he has turned it into a nation building boondoggle a tar baby we now likely will never be free of. Worse he has united what was once an enemy nation against Iraq against us as well. All this time no additional call for more troops on permenant active duty.
The other problem is General George failed to plan. Where are the needed extra forces to give those who are on third and forth tours relief? The reserves? He's destroying that program as well. Bush deceived all of us even to the point of his Mission Accomplished nonsense on a flight-deck. Ron Paul has read him like a book as well as his fellow members of congress.
Congress in either party did not want this war as in a full scale knock down drag out get it over with war lasting in months rather than a decade from now limited hands tied actions. Thats why they took the cowards way out in their authorization of use of force rather than an actual declaration or war which would have bound congress and Bush to it's swift end. They did it to save their political butts and only Ron Paul had the guts to say NO! in the GOP. He was right. Either declare it or shut up.
Bush has tied the troops hands as bit as much as LBJ did trying to protect the Iraqi people. Yet it's good because he's a Republican? Maybe if Bush had actually flown a combat mission he would have had a different view about what it takes to win. We will not win in Iraq under the Bush war plan because he has no war plan. That is one reason he can't keep generals. He doesn't allow plans for war but for policing limited areas. He has a nation building plan which in 2000 he said he was against nation building. He sure changed his mind fast now didn't he.
His intent from day one in Iraq was nation building and the first two days of air attacks proved as much. Three wars behind us say it can not be done this way and now we wish to make it four because Republicans won't stand up to a POTUS who refuses to admit he screwed up royally on this? We were headed to Iraq 9/11 or not.
About Ron Paul being anti-war? No I don't think so. If the U.S. came under direct attack he would call for a formal declaration of war from congress and that nation would soon regret starting it. He would fight it as a war telling the generals do what it takes to win and you have our blessings and full support. Even FDR knew and understood war and what it took. He let the generals run the war even the tyrant he was otherwise. Truman forgot what it takes as did Johnson and Nixon. Poppy forgot as well. Remember Poppy? He was the one whop mobilized our military into Iraq for war then let Saddam go free. He didn't have the guts either. Then Junior turns right around and has the same clowns plan for another invasion?
So tell me. If Reagan had sent the troop levels into Iraq that Bush did do you think he would have them sitting over there as Nannies and nation builders? Or do you think he would have asked for a plan from the generals to destroy the nation and be done with it to limit loss of American life and equipment and avoid a drawn out war by limited hands tied actions? Actually Reagan was a sneaky man. He didn't strut around on national TV for months on end saying Mommar I'm coming after you. He bombed the man and then Mommar shut up.
You can not take a POTUS serious who is not willing to let the military do their job. Nation building and baby sitting a government is not their job. Bush does not understand this and thus the reason he is loosing support even in the GOP. Their job is to destroy and kill. They are not policemen or the Peace Corp. They are soldiers.
I can understand why. He is the only one who actually understands what the military is to be used for.
Does Paul's definition of a direct attack include the firing of missiles at our pilots on a routine basis. Or does our homeland have to get hit before Paul considers an attack on Americans to constitute an act of war?
If forced to choose -- I could vote for Duncan Hunter or Tancredo. I'd rather stay home than vote for McCain, Guiliani, Romney, etc.
Are you in Iraq as an armed service member or as a civilian working for a contractor? Just curious.
Right. He is not pro-life, but is anti-Roe v. Wade. Not the same thing. (Though better than the Dims and Guliani).
I do attack anti-war leftists. If you see yourself in that category, that is your choice.
I have been going after anti-war leftists since 2003. Nothing new.
Who figured that out ? Propaganda?
Duncan Hunter I could believe , he understands the troops and the troops understand him , but Paul?
I remember in the first debate he was asked the question ; if he’d ever had to deal with a crisis , or something like that.
He completely stumbled and fumbled around and came up with about the lamest answer imaginable ...and they went on to the next guy.
Nope, if I were soldier Mr. Paul would be about the last person I would want as my C&C . Soldiers are not pussies , they just want leaders that give the command and then stand aside and let them do their job.
That’s the kind of Prez we need now , and in 08 ....
I guess that means you are not going to be voting for a Republican in the next presidential election.
I travel outside the wire regularly to Iraqi governement buildings - with US military convoys.
our homeland was attacked directly and personally I would love to see our dear President call for a declaration of WAR on al Qaeda and Iran both .
al Qaeda ? yep , make it a first....as a underworld nation
we should declare upon them.
And our guys were allowed to do what> Mustn't fire back might injure civilians and make Saudi friends the Iraqi friends mad. No No can't do. A Clinton policy as well. Guys get shot at now and the perps hide in the civilian population. Finally the troops having had enough open fire. Civilians die and Liberal JAG's start the Court Martial process. That is not how war is won. Our pilots were being fired upon thanks to Bush's daddy and Clinton. Guess what? They are still being fired at five plus years into this because Bush will not turn the troops loose to do what they have to do to win which is kill innocent and guilty alike. That is how we fought all wars even the Civil War up till Korea when we began loosing them.
Paul supporters are not the ones resorting to ad hominem attacks and desperate smears.
OK thanks for your honesty.
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.