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

Skip to comments.

Grass Roots Activists Push for Paul
NHPR ^ | 7/18/07 | Dan Gorenstein

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: antiestablishment; bloombergpaul2008; cuespookymusic; cutandrun; empire; freedom; globalism; gop; iraq; isolationism; kucinichpaul2008; libertarians; patbuchanangop; paulistinians; realconservative; republicans; ronpaul; ronpaul911truther; thevoicesinronshead; tinfoilhats; truther
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-154 next last
Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: cva66snipe
Our pilots were being fired upon thanks to Bush's daddy and Clinton.

So we agree that the firing of missiles at our pilots constituted an act of war by Hussein -- in fact repeated acts of war. Given that, how come Paul didn't support going to war against the Baathists?

42 posted on 07/20/2007 1:56:35 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LeoWindhorse
al Qaeda ? yep , make it a first....as a underworld nation

Actually *declaring* war would be a start.

43 posted on 07/20/2007 1:59:16 AM PDT by John Farson (Cthulu for President -- why vote for the lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JMack
Reagan sent troops to Lebanon -- he vowed they wouldn't return until the mission was finished.

After the marine barracks bombing, Reagan reconsidered and pulled our troops out. He said there was no accounting for the irrationality of middle eastern politics.

44 posted on 07/20/2007 2:02:13 AM PDT by John Farson (Cthulu for President -- why vote for the lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Here; Let me fix that headline for you:

Grass RootsSmoking Activists Push for Paul

45 posted on 07/20/2007 2:02:42 AM PDT by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JMack
As for Paul, I get the vibe off him of the liberal type of libertarian, and I do not seem to be the only one. There is no way he can rally support at this point, especially after the Gulf of Tonkin statement.

Because of the history of that era. It wasn't just that one. There was more so called slip ups where Johnson put men in harms way that needed not happen. When opposition for Nam was heating up lo and behold a U.S. Navy ship is captured off North Korea. An unarmed intelligence ship except a 50 caliber and a ship laden with classified material with no means of Emergency Destruct because they didn't listen to the ships Captains concerns then after his crew was released Court Martial him. In the mean time LBJ night after night wagged North Korea on TV while Nam went on. People focused on Pueblo not Nam.

There was also Liberty which IMO Johnson never came clean on. Why send a ship into the middle of someone else's war? Johnson was a man few trusted and IMO not above back door deals with Syria whom Israel or Egypt was fighting. Again all eyes focused on Liberty and not Nam.

No elected leader is above checks and balances and scrutiny. Ron Paul is likely the most educated of all persons running for POTUS and he applies the history so mistakes are not to be repeated.

46 posted on 07/20/2007 2:05:41 AM PDT by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: John Farson
Actually *declaring* war would be a start.

You Libertarians amaze me. It is all form over substance with you. It's not important to you that Bush actually got congressional authorization to attack Al Qaeda. What's important to you is the label placed on the authorization. Putting aside the fact that there were good reasons for not 'Declaring War' on Al Qaeda, you sound just like children quibbling with adults over the form of things rather than the substance.

47 posted on 07/20/2007 2:06:00 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
I absolutely concur. In my job, I have to phone Americans, all over the country, five days a week. I have spoken to only a VERY few, and they are easily identifiable as flaming liberal nut-jobs, that are in favor of an immediate withdrawal, or even a “timetable”. Most of them, a definitive majority, wonder just who this “majority” (highly touted by the MSM) might be. They don’t know any of them and neither do I. Of course, there are the “usual suspects” on the right and left coasts, but most Americans want no part of a surrender.

I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that this is a fraud perpetrated by the MSM. They would love nothing better than to achieve the same “coup” they did in Vietnam. Remember Walter “Crock-of-sh!t”, et al? I sure do.

48 posted on 07/20/2007 2:08:37 AM PDT by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,.......for without victory there is no survival."--Churchill--that's "Winston")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

Yeah, that Constitution thing is so antiquated — we should just ignore it. Article 1, Section 8 is just toilet paper.


49 posted on 07/20/2007 2:08:38 AM PDT by John Farson (Cthulu for President -- why vote for the lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
So we agree that the firing of missiles at our pilots constituted an act of war by Hussein -- in fact repeated acts of war. Given that, how come Paul didn't support going to war against the Baathists?

Answer me this and you'll have your answer to your question. Which Republican Congressman called for a vote for a formal declaration of war against Iraq. Which ones and which POTUS was against it? Those missiles could have been stopped without war by simply allowing the pilots to carpet bomb the entire area sparing no one. Why was that not allowed?

50 posted on 07/20/2007 2:09:00 AM PDT by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #51 Removed by Moderator

To: John Farson

It’s not ignoring the Constitution if you get congressional authorization — in fact it is kind of the point of that particular clause in the Constitution. Aside from that, I’m guessing it matters not a whit to you that we didn’t want to Declare War on Al Qaeda because that would have entitled them to rights under the Geneva Convention which they are not otherwise entitled to.


52 posted on 07/20/2007 2:14:47 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

Look war is a punishment to be inflicted upon a nation. Up[on a nation means the nation. The military and the people who allowed the ones to come to power who caused the problems. It means innocents die as well. It means entire nations can perish if that is what it takes. However I see it as an act of last resort but once declared it must be an absolute act until the will of the enemy people and military is such they no longer fight. That is not what is going on in Iraq. That is not what happened in Nam. That is not what happened in Korea. That is what happened however in every U.S. war up to that point and hey we one too. People who think war can be kind and gentle have no business being involved in calling for it.


53 posted on 07/20/2007 2:15:43 AM PDT by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JMack
A Hunter nomination would be something to get excited about.

The establishment candidates elicit a cold-fish, Bob Dole ennui.

54 posted on 07/20/2007 2:16:43 AM PDT by John Farson (Cthulu for President -- why vote for the lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

I hope Iraq does not become our own national West Bank. The Israeli conflict has persisted for the same reasons you mention.


55 posted on 07/20/2007 2:19:52 AM PDT by John Farson (Cthulu for President -- why vote for the lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Which Republican Congressman called for a vote for a formal declaration of war against Iraq.

We did have a vote for a formal declaration of war against Iraq and here is part of the pertinent language from it:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; . . .


(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; . . .

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

56 posted on 07/20/2007 2:21:48 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Why should our military enforce U.N. resolutions? Is not our own law enough?

Lending any legitimacy to the U.N. undermines our own national sovereignty.

57 posted on 07/20/2007 2:25:39 AM PDT by John Farson (Cthulu for President -- why vote for the lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
And here is how Paul led off his statement opposing the Congressional Authorization. The very first reason he gave was that he didn't consider it a big deal that they were firing on our pilots on a routine basis. Apparently with Paul, we have to wait for our homeland to be attacked before we can legitimately go to war.

But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.
58 posted on 07/20/2007 2:25:44 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: John Farson

Was it legitimate to go to war against Hussein given that he was routinely firing missiles at our pilots?


59 posted on 07/20/2007 2:26:28 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: John Farson
I hope Iraq does not become our own national West Bank. The Israeli conflict has persisted for the same reasons you mention.

And sadly enough with the help of our state department as well. People forget it was Israel who ended Saddam's nuclear program. But yes it seems every time Israels leaders say enough is enough and try to deal with terrorism on their borders lo and behold in steps the U.S. State Department who enabled such scum as Arafat. Had we left Israel alone I do wonder how many M.E. issues we would be facing. Remember that little nation took on the region all at one time and won.

It is also unnerving to me that our government is pushing Israel into peace agreements. If anyone studies the Good Book that kind of policy with Israel should make them real nervous. Israel will indeed be deceived into a peace agreement.

60 posted on 07/20/2007 2:28:08 AM PDT by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-154 next last

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.

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