Posted on 08/31/2007 6:16:40 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
The first truth we must find is a way to swallow this - we have exactly the government we elected!
Our Republican President has a public approval rating hovering around 30% and our Democrat congress has an approval rating down around 20%. Clearly, we don’t think much of our government, but we elected them and what does that say about us?
(snip)
In my last column titled “Ron Paul—A Liberal-tarian, not a Conservative," I demonstrated how easy it is to attack any politician on his alleged voting record, demonize an entire group on the basis of a few in that group who are willing to use unethical tactics to promote their allegedly ethical candidate, and cause a firestorm of political banter, both pro and con, without ever really getting to the heart of the subject at hand.
Welcome to American politics circa 2007
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhillcoffeehouse.com ...
Already answred, if you were reading as much as regurgitating untruths, you’d already know my answer.
“The options are only limited by our Constitution and our imaginations. We successfully won the Cold War using those options, imo.”
We wopn the cold war by outspending the Soviet Union in an arms race until they were broke. A great strategy, I agree. But one that only works against a “nation”, not against an ideology spread around the globe and people who don’t care if you uke one country they operate in because they claim no country.
“Go suck an egg. — “
So you prefer not to answer the question, but rather call names? And you think I am the fool...
Maxwell Smart, I answered by telling you that my opinion is drawn on daily contact with troops in and returning from Iraq. Not good enough for you?
Need a “link”? Several have been posted on this thread since you asked for a link.
You are NOT interested in reality in Iraq or America. You are interested only in your political agenda, no matter how many it kills.
That’s the point, NO nation has declared war on America, which is why America declared no war on any nation.
You’re talking in circles again... Forget to take your meds.
I told you to google New Iraq. You chose to do the opposite and google Iraq death toll.
Your dodge was okay with me so long as you play it out. Either will work. Look for progress in Iraq and you will find it. Look for death tolls and you will find that too. But my statement was, as safe as most major US cities. To know this, you must compare the death toll in Iraq to the death toll in America during the same time frame.
Unless you don’t care to know the truth, which you seems to be the case.
What do you think each are? With links, thanks.
Well my 2.5 cents on this issue as a Ron Paul supporter is this: Ron Paul is a mix of libertarian and conservative Republican. He is for a limited federal government as defined by the Constitution, and if new powers need to be granted, then pass an amendment. Hardly a liberal in that area. Since social issues are not an area that the federal government has authority over, then those issues can be dealt with at the state level. I see the federal government’s role as a check on the states and what laws they can pass so that individual liberties are maintained. What I find instead is both the federal and state governments (sometimes local as well) have to be fought in order to protect individual rights.
It is not liberal social policies that cause excessive social spending. To think that is the case means that you believe the government attempting to be the moral police actually solve anything. That is where I disagree with many “conservatives”. I see abortion as a life issue and not a choice issue but criminal behavior is a state issue and not federal. I see the war on drugs to be as useless as prohibition was and wonder why we needed a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but no need for an amendment to wage an endless war on drugs.
I’m disgusted with the GOP that can’t seem to actually cut anything and have become merely the more appealing clones of the Democrats. Huckabee just said he would ban smoking in all public places as President. What sort of freedom is left in this country?
On the war, I initially supported Bush, and in some ways still do. But I also know that us being over there also incites more muslims and so it is very complicated. If we had not gone into Iraq like Cheney warned of in 1994 or Ron Paul warned shortly before our attack, we would be safer today. The Islamic threat is a religious war on their part mixed with an anger over Western interference in their affairs for decades. The best way to combat a religious war in my opinion is to undermine the religious teachings and in our situation, to also pull back our forces and remove an irritant.
If another candidate besides Ron Paul wants my support, then I want to hear and have demonstrated that they want to gut the over-reaching federal government bureacrats and return to a Constitutionally limited federal government. Until that other candidate comes along, Ron Paul is the best person that I know of.
Sure some Ron Paul supportors contradict themselves. We are a mix of Republicans, Libertarians, Constitution Party, and Democrats. If some of those supporters do not contradict each other at times, I would be astonished.
The options are only limited by our Constitution and our imaginations. We successfully won the Cold War using those options, imo.
We wopn the cold war by outspending the Soviet Union in an arms race until they were broke. A great strategy, I agree. But one that only works against a 'nation', not against an ideology spread around the globe and people who don't care if you uke one country they operate in because they claim no country.
I'll make it simple, since you clearly have no personal experience with war, battle, fighting, even on a perosnal level I suspect.
I was on the line in Germany with the 503/502nd Airborne Infantry for a couple of years in the mid-'50s. Your personal remarks make you look like a fool.
Make it personal, so that you can't miss the point. Your family home is attacked daily by thugs in the neighborhood. Each day without response, the attcks get worse. You are certain that they will eventually kill your family if YOU don't DO SOMETHING! What are your options and label them offensive (pre-emptive), defensive (reactionary) or whatever other strategy you think exists...
Go suck an egg about what I must "label" -- You "clearly" imagine you can order FReepers about, thereby controlling the discussion. -- Get a grip on your 'strategical' delusions.
So you prefer not to answer the question, but rather call names? And you think I am the fool...
Here's your foolishness, posted again:
"-- you clearly have no personal experience with war, battle, fighting, even on a perosnal level I suspect.
You called me out, "perosnal", and yes, -- it does make you look like a fool.
Want to tell us your own personal experience with war, battle, fighting?
Totally dishonest, and a total a misrepresentation of his positions.
Your attempt to link the US Constitution and it’s supporters with some socialist party reveals your desperation. The US Constitution is not a platform for socialism. Nor is RP a socialist by any stretch of the term.
You sir-madame, are a disgrace.
'End of discussion'? LOL! How tyrannical of you.
-----
So you've come to the conclusion this is a 'proper' war without presenting one shred of Constitutional evidence. Guess I finally have the answer to my question.
You DO believe the Constitution is a living document.
We didn't declare war, but we're still conducting one.
-----
You’re talking in circles again... Forget to take your meds.
Insinuating that I'm deficient in some manner in no way, shape or form constitutes a rational rebuttal.
Bravo!
Well said.
You are a fool, then.
You have no concept of votes that are within the parameters of the Constitution and would rather rely on organizations' scorecharts to form your conclusion.
What votes?
“A great strategy, I agree. But one that only works against a “nation”, not against an ideology spread around the globe and people who don’t care if you uke one country they operate in because they claim no country.”
I beg to differ. They have a country alright. It’s known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from which flows the oil and the monies for terrorism. Course the good ole USA provides terrorists some monies as well with our foreign aid packages that end up in the hands of terrorists.
The link between SA and terrorism is not debatable. If Americans had their way, no foreign aid would ever be given to like nations.
Only RP votes no to supporting terrorism via foreign aid.
Do you know of anyone else in congress who consistently votes no to foreign aid besides RP?
Answer the question please. Do you know anyone else in congress who consistently votes NO to foreign aid packages besides RP?
Please, if you do, introduce us all to him/her now. Since RP is going to need a like minded constitutionally driven running mate for VP.
No, the majority of Paul supporters don't even know what a neo-con is. They're just ordinary folks who are sick of lying politicians who want to expand government and meddle in the affairs of other nations.
...and claiming he is the second coming of the Lord of conservatism.
Nobody said he was, but he's head and shoulders above all of the other candidates with the exception of Fred.
Ok I’ll play along.
Let me give you a bit of a poser here
Say that in a few weeks a bill comes across some committee in Congress proposing an Amendment to the US Constitution that says something to the effect that all previous admsntments are now void and from this point on we will use the rules of Monopoly in governing the country. Say that bill passes from both houses to the many states and becomes ratified, survives all legal challenges and the like and becomes law of the land. As an approved, ratified and vetted Amendment, part of the Constitution itself, is it Constitutional?
Remember in my earlier post about the founders trusting future generations to do the right thing. By making the Constitution a very strong statement on running a republic, by creating the supporting governmental structures, and the fact that it can be amended for ANY reason, they passed to us a living guide for all time.
Now argue the strengths and weaknesses of that statement as you will. I know how much that has been used by the left and how it hacks us as conservatives, but anything open to certain various interpretations via courts and the law will not please everyone. We were entrusted to do what is best, it is our own fault if we allow people with contrary opinions to succeed.
As far as ignoring the Constitution, it has been done more than once. Does that suck, perhaps and perhaps not depending on the exact issue. My favorite example is Jefferson and the Louisiana purchase. That was way out of bounds and it was done by one of the very men who created the Constitution itself, and for that I respect him, for I would miss Cajun food...
“My favorite example is Jefferson and the Louisiana purchase.”
Let’s see, purchase La., or go to war with France (our allies during the revolution?)
Let’s see, with the purchase of La., the US gains another port of entry to collect duties. Send Americans to fight and die for it, or buy it? hmmm? What shall it be? Like TJ, I would buy it. Much cheaper.
Congress approved and the purchase was made. Course, hindsight is 20 20.
I showed you I mentioned missiles in the post you cited earlier.
I have provided sound answers to your post, but since it does not fit into your neat little view of a perfect 1940s world, it is “illogical” Typical.
However I shall carry on...
Indeed I have read the Constitution more than a few times. I have also read the works of Jefferson and Madison, the Federalist papers, Adam Smith and a host of other works.
Does that alter the fact the in the 21st century the dynamics of security and defense have changed radically...
No.
Does wanting to prevent a disaster blindsiding our nation and possibly killing my family make me a bully, perhaps, but an alive one.
And I will be blunt. As a student of Military History, of weapons and technology, though I have been out of that actively for some time, I am aware of how fast thing can change, how quickly a disaster can strike from the actions of even the most seemingly benign enemies.
Knowing what I know, looking at the ultrasound of my unborn son, my first child at the age of 42, realizing the world we live in TODAY, not 50 years ago, I am more convinced than ever that INACTION is the worst approach. If my desires to protect my family are “unconstitutional” then by God and all that is holy, give me a lighter so I can burn the damn thing.
Harsh, you betcha, but this Conservative is a real Conservative, and the root of that philosophy is conserve. That starts at home. I will do whatever, support whatever it takes to conserve the life of that child and his mother, rules and laws be damned.
So was about half this country...
Sheesh...
I keep looking for Pirate ships on Google Earth.
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.