Ron Paul supporters urged to attend MoveOn.org Rally !

RonPaul MeetUp Group ^ | 26 August 2007 | David Osborne

[davidosborne]

Many of you know that I help organize the Duncan Hunter "meetup" group(s). I decided to peek in at the "competition" and found it very interesting that Ron Paul supporters are being urged to attend the MoveOn.org rally....

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/1/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3421862

I post this because I know there are a lot of folks on FR that support Ron Paul.. I just wonder if you are participating in this effort.. or what you think about this whole business of catering to MoveOn.org

.... quote from an active Ron Paul supporter

Somebody posted a thread concerning moveon, and letting their members know about Ron Paul. As a member of moveon.org, I received today an invitation to create an anti-war rally on August 28th. They will be doing rallies all across the nation on that day. We should invade this event. During the rally, bring anti-war stickers, signs, and flags -- and also Ron Paul signs. Introduce moveon members to Ron Paul, the REAL anti-war candidate! Anti-war people will ask about Ron Paul and be introduced to him on that day. Don't be rude, just gently introduce people to the peace candidate. Moveon.org is well cordinated, so if enough of our people show up at their rallies, we might be able to convert a huge number of people.

I have already created a moveon.org anti-war rally, on the 28th at 7pm, right outisde of the West Covina Mall. Please, everybody who can in this group, COME. It's on the corner of Vincent and Plaza Drive in West Covina.

Edited by Karsten Nicholson on Aug 24, 2007 at 1:44 PM

[George W. Bush]

We don't share our shrimp with the Paul-bashers.

Make a donation to RP's campaign. Then you can have some shrimp.

[SoldierDad]

I am not a Giuliani supporter. I will not vote for him even if he becomes the GOP candidate. I will either vote independent or write in the candidate of my choice. I do not listen to anything coming from his campaign and I do not pay attention to him. So, let it be understood that my opinion of RP is based upon what I have heard out of his own mouth and not from anywhere else.

If during the discourse on the various RP threads it was not you who has hurled insults in mine and others directions then I stand corrected and offer my humble apology. There are many on these threads who have demonstrated the depth to which RP supporters are willing to stoop by making comments that are meant to be nothing but hurtful. If I attacked you wrongly it is because of the many insults I’ve endured. So, let us agree to disagree regarding RP and let the rest stand where it is.

[soccermom]

"MoveOn.Org" doesn't have a chance of managing us -- sheesh, we can barely even manage ourselves. LOL! You had better set EEE straight, because he claims Moveon moonbats are trying to "snooker" Paul supporters. The question isn't whether or not Moveon.org controls you --- the question is do Ron Paul activists use Moveon.org events as a means for recruiting voters to Paul?

[italianquaker]

LOL

[George W. Bush]

Some of you might enjoy this letter about the pro-war/anti-war divide in the GOP. This is pretty relevant to this thread and to the upcoming Texas straw poll.

---

[Editor's note: Margie Raborn & her husband Robert reside near Columbus, Texas and have been active in Texas politics for over 20 years. The following letter is republished from The Texas Insider with her permission. Her thoughts are well worth considering, and she welcomes your comments.]

by Margie Raborn

Cathie Adams stated in her July 1st Texas Eagle Forum e-mail, "It is my firm conviction that no presidential candidate in '08 can claim to support our troops, but NOT support their mission." Such a statement is not only an affront to presidential candidate Ron Paul, who claims this as his position, but to all of us who DO support the troops, but do NOT support this war.

Mrs. Adams has earned the respect of many Texas citizens and has considerable influence in Republican politics. However, such a pronouncement seemed to me to be a very deceitful and unjust slap against Congressman Paul, who warned against going into Iraq and continues to oppose the mission in Iraq. He promises to bring our troops home, as quickly as possible, and use them to protect our own borders and to defend our national sovereignty.

Congressman Paul has an impeccable record on national defense, which is one of the Constitutional duties of the Congress, as well as, an impeccable record of support for helping our returning veterans. While Mrs. Adams may unequivocally state that you can't support the troops without supporting the war, it appears that many of our military personnel do not agree with her. Congressman Paul has had more campaign contributions from the military than any other presidential candidate.

According to Mrs. Adams, support for the troops and support for the mission in Iraq are one and the same. If she believes that a presidential candidate cannot support one without supporting the other, then it appears she would be equally convinced that an individual cannot support the troops, unless they likewise support the war in Iraq. This seems to be a preposterous conclusion.

I am offended by such an accusation as this, on a very personal level.

Margie Raborn, Columbus, TX

---

Some of us longtime RP supporters were very much in support of our troops and very much opposed to the Xlinton action under the U.N. banner in Kosovo/Serbia/Croatia. Especially in supporting resistance to placing American troops under an incompetent foreign commander under the U.N.! And we were correct. This was in fact the uniform position here at FR in the pre-Bush era. I'll point out that both Bush and McStain vocally and publicly supported Xlinton's ill-begotten nation-building nation-destroying anti-Christian (literally) crusade in the Balkans, a continuing disaster.

Many of us remain hard opponents of nation-building exercises, playing global policeman, the vast expansions in foreign aid we've had, funds we've dispensed to the Third World with money we printed by deflating our currency or just borrowed from China.

[George W. Bush]

LOL

At least you have a sense of humor, unlike some of the really humorless drones who find meaning in life by bashing on Ron Paul 24/7 while complaining that he has no standing, no support, etc. I don't think they realize how funny they really are.

[xzins]

support for troops...support for war

The most important issues boil down to whether a combat campaign (war, seizure, reprisal, etc.) is Just & Necessary.

If they are Just & Necessary, then true support for a soldier MUST include support for his mission. Otherwise, we tell him that his sweat, toil, sacrifice, and blood are in vain and cheap.

To abandon an enterprise once begun is to send the message to family and comrade-in-arms that the sacrifices have been abandoned....never worth it in the first place.

This is tragic because it takes away one major solace of the injured and bereaved -- that their loved one sacrificed for an honor-laden cause. Take that away, and you've cut their heart out and caused unending pain.

For this reason, we must never hastily agree to a combat offensive, nor must we hastily leave one.

Somalia is a great example. Exactly what solace do those families of dead soldiers cling to?

No one can deny that the Reprisal Against Terror (commonly called War on Terror) is just and necessary. The Iraqi campaign of that reprisal has its detractors for various reasons.

However, unless we can prove with absolute certainty that there was no terror threat from Saddam's Iraq, we should be SENSITIVE to the blood of those who've sacrificed, and to the families of the bereaved before we make broad pronouncements.

[italianquaker]

We might disagree but we can still be civil and enjoy a laugh

[George W. Bush]

Hopefully.

[Fudd Fan]

I did read it, know-it-all. Paul is a moonbat. Perfect fit.

[L98Fiero]

“I Agree with you. Is downsizing DC a good idea? Hell yeah! Will it ever happen? Hell no.”

Thank you. There is nothing I would love more than a MUCH smaller government. I have determined that is against the nature of the beast. Government lives to grow. I have worked for the government and the most important thing to the civil service manager is a big, fat budget. It’s a symbol of power and worth in those quarters. You don’t get a big fat budget by cutting back. I’ve had thousands of dollars of equipment I didn’t need or want forced on me because we went in under budget and leftover money needed to be spent or our budget may have been cut. So what? We obviously didn’t need the money anyway. That’s not the point, I was told.

The point was to grow government, employ friends and family and run anybody off who questioned it.

[George W. Bush]

If they are Just & Necessary, then true support for a soldier MUST include support for his mission. Otherwise, we tell him that his sweat, toil, sacrifice, and blood are in vain and cheap.

I think we are obligated to support the troops no matter what. We were right to support them in Xlinton's anti-Christian pro-narcoterrorist rampage in the Balkans. We are right to support them in their mission to Afghanistan/Waziristan. We are right to support them now in Iraq (even if some of us don't agree with the mission). And we will be right to support them if a President Hitlery orders them to invade Israel to impose a peace process on them for the sake of the Palis despite our undoubted opposition to such an evil plan.

I know, I know, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds but it is one of my weaknesses.

Somalia is a great example. Exactly what solace do those families of dead soldiers cling to?

The deaths of soldiers is regrettable and inevitable. Merely by fielding an army of hundreds of thousands in various aircraft and vehicles, some will die if we are only training them. Or if deployed on a totally innocent and warmly welcome base on foreign soil, like in Eastern Europe.

One might say that those deaths from mere accidents (generally involving vehicles) had no solace either. I would object. Military service to the country is always honorable if you don't disgrace your uniform (as many of us would say of John Kerry). Still, even Kerry wore that uniform and faced a certain amount of danger, whatever his motives and later disgraceful and opportunistic conduct.

Our soldiers and their service are always to be honored, whether a Republican or a Dim is in the White House, whether we agree with their military deployments or not.

No one can deny that the Reprisal Against Terror (commonly called War on Terror) is just and necessary. The Iraqi campaign of that reprisal has its detractors for various reasons.

Because al-Qaeda was not in Iraq? Because there was no WMD program in Iraq? Because the only terrorism being sponsored was in subsidizing the families of Pali suicide bombers (much as they are subsidized by high-ranking Saudis, our great allies in that same War On Terror)?

No one is crying over Saddam. But the war in Afghanistan and bringing Osama to justice is still relevant to 9/11 and the entire War On Terror. Iraq is a peripheral issue to the War On Terror. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Rice, none of them cited Saddam as a terrorist or as being behind the 9/11 attacks. To hold a Just War theory, you have to focus on the justifications for war given at the time to determine motives and the effect of actions taken.

[ExSoldier]

Ron Paul, the REAL anti-war candidate! Anti-war people will ask about Ron Paul and be introduced to him on that day. Don't be rude, just gently introduce people to the peace candidate. Moveon.org is well cordinated, so if enough of our people show up at their rallies, we might be able to convert a huge number of people.

Interesting. I seriously doubt that Ron Paul is catering to the whacko base of the organization, especially the ultra hard core lefties that represents the driving force of the group. But I'll bet there are a lkot of folks who are totally against the war but could be moderate or even conservative on other issues. I think it's smart. Nobody loses except the RATS. Any folks attending the rally that can be shown another option aside from the Deamoncrats, might cause a schism to appear in the solidarity. They might even shake that solidarity so much that votes start to peel off. In trying to keep the sheep inside the fold, the base may reveal their true extremeism to the moderate anti-war citizens and thus really cut their own throats in the vote department. The more I think of it, the more convinced I become that this goes beyond interesting. It's bloody well brilliant!

[jrooney]

I was discussing terror on U.S. soil. Talking about trutherism from a freeper that supports the king of trutherism. I wondered when you would stick your head out of your spider hole. Back from from forced leave I see. * snicker. A freeper that likes to mock a great president by invoking his name, yet posts comments he would disagree with. Pathetic. I have said it before, FR made a mistake with allowing you to use his name. It reflects bad on FR everytime you post your nonsense. Better start looking for a new name because he will be out of office in 18 months. I have a few screen names for you to consider. RonISurrenderPaul, RonPaFoolsFool, LibLoserRonPaul, etc. You get the point.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

If you haven’t read Stephen Lawhead’s “Merlin/Arthur” series, you should. It is without doubt the best example of outstanding Celtic researched fiction that’s been written.

I am certain that you are correct, and I respect your opinion.

Unfortunately, after that abominable Clive Owen movie "King Arthur", I think that I have lost my taste for Celtic Fiction. That's a Movie that I've been hoping that Hollywood would make for so long (an historical account of King Arthur -- the Christian-Roman General Arturias and his Christian-Roman knights against the Pagan Anglo-Saxons), that I was almost willing to overlook the legion of historical errors which they incorporated.

The Legend of King Arthur IS, in my opinion, a Story that needs to be told. But the Movie, in question, did NOT "perform as advertised", shall we say.

At least they got the Political feel of Britain right, I guess... a worthless and soggy island at the very end of the world where the hardened Christian Knights of Rome could finish out their last days of slave-service to Rome against the invincible killing-machine of the Pagan German hordes -- THAT much, they got right. THAT is the original germ-seed of the Arthur-Arturias Legend.

"Merlin" himself is a hard historical figure for whom to account; perhaps a Byzantine Priest or alchemist who bore the recipe for "Greek Fire" to the last legions of Christian-Roman Britain? It is impossible to say; for though we know that "Arturias" was a True Christian-Roman General of accomplishment, recorded in History, the enigmatic figure of "Merlin" is much harder to pin down -- and yet, ever-present. Perhaps "your guess is as good as mine".

I do know this much, though -- it was pure Hollywood Anti-Calvinism for the Screenwriter to pretend that General Arturias was a follower of the Free-Will-ArchHeretic Pelagius, when in fact the Augustine-Pelagius Free Will-Predestination controversy had already been settled, in Augustine's favor, at least eighty years before the Action of the Story; and what is more, the fact is that Pelagius was hardly beloved in Roman Britain; all accounts indicate that he fled to Rome to find a greater audience for his Free-Will Theories, BECAUSE the Roman Christians of Britain were so resolutely committed to Absolute Predestination that they did not WANT a Heretic preaching "Free Will" in their domain.

(Basically, they transferred their allegiance from Odin to Yahweh, but retained their belief in Absolute Predestination:

"The All-Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago.
Go and hide in a hole if you wish... but you won't live one instant longer.
Your Fate is fixed.
Fear profits a man... nothing."
~~ Herger the Joyous, The Thirteenth Warrior)

It was absolutely asinine for the Screenwriters to pretend that the Roman General Arturias was a follower of Free-Will Pelagianism eighty years after Pelagianism had been run out of Britain due to the Predestinarian British hatred of the Heretical Doctrine of Free-Will. And of course Pelagius was NOT burned at the Stake; he was merely Excommunicated from the Church; And I rather think that the Commanding General of Roman Britain, General "Arturias", probably would have heard about all this in the EIGHTY YEARS since the Augustine-Pelagius controversy. (Especially given that, as a good British Christian, he probably aligned himself with the argument for Absolute Predestination!)

And at the end of the day, the invincible Martian killing-machines swept away all in their path, thus forcing us to work together.

The rest is History, and I shall leave it to better men than myself to write it.

I have written what I have written, and you all may sort it out as best you can. God knows I could not -- given the time I had. I shall now retire -- and pray God's blessings upon you all.

Good night.

OP

[George W. Bush]

I was discussing terror on U.S. soil.

I assume this means that you don't have and can't provide any consistent standard by which one can determine if the government is conspiring or covering up something except by applying a partisan litmus test (conspiracy-mongering good while Dims in office, conspiracy-mongering bad when Republicans are in office).

Me, I prefer consistency. That said, I have no interest in Trutherism, orginally a bunch of very liberal Dims spinning anti-Bush propaganda who have been joined and overtaken by an entire pack of diverse Internet attention-whores, con men, and nutjobs.

[Marine_Uncle]

You make good points regarding Paul's reluctance to join in the GWOT. Heaven only knows how he might screw up any positive gains the various Intel Organizations have reached since GWB had the shops partially cleaned.

[George W. Bush]

The more I think of it, the more convinced I become that this goes beyond interesting. It's bloody well brilliant!

The guy who's organizing this FReeping of a MoveOn event by RP supporters joined up here at FR last night. He posted a number of times here and I expect he'll be back later today. His comments remind me of a lot of our younger RP supporters.

I'm looking forward to Karsten's personal account of his event and the photos of the MoveOns.

[stand watie]

i don't know why this thread has more than ONE response, as Ron Paul has the same chance as i do to ever be POTUS = NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH.

anybody who thinks otherwise has a VACUMN between their ears. further,his "supporters" are throwing their $$$$ away on a pipe-dream.

instead of engaging in this fantasy, they need to get behind someone who has a CHANCE in real life of beating "the hilleryBEAST" in '08.

free dixie,sw

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Oh, Hellfire.

Please ignore my #725, I got carried away with a bit of Sci-Fi writing for a friend of mine, in reference to Kevin J. Anderson's "War of the Worlds: Global Dispatches".

Matter of fact, if the Admin Moderator would be so kind as to delete my #725 entirely, I should be very grateful.

I was writing two essays at once, one genuine and one fanciful, and I managed to combine the two before posting. While my friends and I enjoy early 20th-Century Science Fiction, I did not intend to post fanciful discussions of "invincible Martian killing-machines" on THIS Forum.

Much too H.G. Wells for JimRob's sandbox. I apologize.