Paul's supporters disappointed by results

Dallas Morning News ^ | September 2, 2007 | GROMER JEFFERS Jr.

[Ferox]

I tend to be a little right of center politically, and I do like some of the Libertarian political ideological positions; however, Paul’s positions on America’s involvement in Iraq and the “war on terror” will keep me from supporting him. Blaming America for 9/11 is offensive to me, and isolationism is a dangerous ideology.

[DoughtyOne]

And your snide slurs based on your ignorance of the 1980 election, which elicited my reaction, weren’t moronic?

When you’ve educated yourself on the 1980 election, come on back and carry on an adult conversation. Until then, I don’t care if you respond or not.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Tell us more about your love for Ron Paul.

Some of the material is not suitable for children. :-)

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

What is it exactly you think Paul will accomplish if he is president?

He has already moved the discussion towards the proper limits of the federal government. I don't think he'll accomplish most of his goals (assuming he's elected) but there will be balanced budgets, for starters. I can easily see the Department of Education or Housing being abolished.

and while we are at it, let’s add another question germane to that — what major piece of legislation can Paul claim credit for.

One of my personal favorites is HR 1146 - Terminating U.S. relations with the U.N.

He has been a part of the Washington establishment for 10 terms now afterall, so surely there must be something, oui?

That's an asset, not a liability. Besides, there was a ten-year gap between his Congressional terms.

[elhombrelibre]

I understand, and I don't like homo-erotic stuff any way. :-)

[Abcdefg]

Then you don’t see ‘em very well.

[tpaine]

Kirks quote:

"..The libertarians are rejected because they are metaphysically mad.
Lunacy repels and political lunacy especially. I do not mean they are dangerous; nay, they are repellant merely.

ejonesie22 'repellently' agrees:

Interesting post, mainly because I had a running dialog with a libertarian yesterday who was offended by the idea that I would burn the Constitution in a heartbeat if it stood between my family and their safety.

I was 'repelled' because nothing in our Constitution stands between you, your family and their safety.
It's a silly claim.

It grew from another argument with Paul supporters and their idea that we should withdraw from the world's stage and let the border patrol defend us or some such rot. What we are doing is "Unconstitutional"

Well, -- that's your misguided version of the thread. -- Which you scuttled away from when I called you out on your claims about the Constitution being a "living document".

They hit me back with some line about reverence for the document. They were Agnostic it appears.

My religious beliefs were, and are not, the issue.

I pointed out the Bill of Rights and the fact we are endowed, by the Creator, with certain inalienable rights, and the Constitution is there to defend same.
He fired back that it works just as well without the "by our Creator" statement, that we are just simply endowed with inalienable rights.

Is it your point that we are not so endowed ?? --

Of course I pointed out that it was written as I presented.

And then you scuttled away, without responding to my next post. -- And here you are, -- telling everybody about your triumph on a completely different thread, -- without even pinging me... Feel proud.

The whole of the American experience, all the documents and laws cannot be separated from the divine, yet there are many who have replaced God with a document, worshiping the law.
Most are libertarians as far as I can tell.

Yep, us repellent libertarians believe in our Constitutions 'rule of law'.

I have no problem respecting the Constitution, indeed it is the law of a blessed land, but it is God, then Family, then Country. God expects me to protect what he has given me, namely my wife and soon to be child. I do that now by supporting our efforts in a modern nuclear age world.

You've mentioned that before, -- how do 'nukes' supposedly modify our rule of law, our Constitution?

Separating the divine from the constructs of our Republic and it's laws is like Frosted Flakes without the sugar coating. It leave you with nothing but Flakes... In this case, the kind that spout the arguments Kirk mentions in your excerpt...

Gotta love you calling us flakes..

[ejonesie22]

Scuttled away! You are indeed a raving mad man, for the last post between us on that thread WAS MINE!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889336/posts?page=258#258

And the last post to another of your Peers on this thread was also mine:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1890308/posts?page=193#193

And let us make it a triple from the first thread!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889336/posts?page=292#292

And of course this response.

Scuttle way indeed. The truth is as alien to you as light is to the blind...

[trisham]

Hell, even 10 percent of adults think Elvis is still alive. You're even more marginalized than that.

*************

Ron Paul supporters are likely the bulk of that 10 percent.

[trisham]

LOL! Math was never my subject, however.

[nwrep]

Are all Paul supporters closet homos, or only some of them?

[ejonesie22]

Oh, and to your “endowed” remark, yes we are so endowed with those rights BY OUR CREATOR, as written.

You want to remove the Creator part, as I quote from your post bellow:.

"-- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness --"

Great concept, -- one that still makes perfect sense if modified as below:

'-- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are born equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness --'

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889336/posts?page=257#257

Your self assumed edit changes the original intent of a founding document.

Seems you have issues with others doing the same, but I guess it is OK, you are among the chosen ones...

For the rest of use, the majority of Americans, as well as our founders, the Creator is no "Concept"

[Lovebloggers]

“I don’t think he’ll accomplish most of his goals (assuming he’s elected) but there will be balanced budgets, for starters. I can easily see the Department of Education or Housing being abolished.”

All of the bills he has sponsored have been tabled. He will get nothing accomplished.

As for the DOE being abolished — BAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

“One of my personal favorites is HR 1146 - Terminating U.S. relations with the U.N. “

Let me rephrase the question. What major piece of legislation THAT PASSED can Paul claim credit for.

I’ll help you out with the answer — none. Ten terms and a lot of rhetoric nonsense. He doesn’t even attempt to illicit support for his legislation.

My personal favorite Paul political posturing bills are:

H.CON.RES.206
Title: RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 7/31/2001) Cosponsors (8)
Latest Major Action: 8/13/2001 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

---

COSPONSORS(8), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Ballenger, Cass [NC-10] - 7/31/2001
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 7/31/2001
Rep Bereuter, Doug [NE-1] - 8/1/2001
Rep Dreier, David [CA-28] - 7/31/2001
Rep Kolbe, Jim [AZ-5] - 7/31/2001
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-41] - 9/6/2001
Rep Nethercutt, George R., Jr. [WA-5] - 7/31/2001
Rep Toomey, Patrick J. [PA-15] - 9/6/2001

______________

Title: RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 11/19/2001) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 12/5/2001 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

____________________________

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery

[navyguy]

I won’t vote for Ron Paul but his focus on the Constitution is most appreciated and a breath of fresh air.

[tpaine]

From your unsolicited remarks about me above:

He fired back that it works just as well without the "by our Creator" statement, that we are just simply endowed with inalienable rights.

Is it your point that we are not so endowed ?? -

-- yes we are so endowed with those rights BY OUR CREATOR, as written. You want to remove the Creator part,

Hold on there. I 'want' no such thing. -- I wrote:

Great concept, -- one that still makes perfect sense if modified as below:

'-- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are born equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness --'

as I quote from your post bellow:.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889336/posts?page=257#257

Your self assumed edit changes the original intent of a founding document.

No, my example, made on another thread, used by you [out of context] here on this thread for a bit of boasting, -- is a great reason this site has rules about cross-threading discussions.

Seems you have issues with others doing the same, but I guess it is OK, you are among the chosen ones...

Strange remark, 'chosen'. -- Not around here I'm not.

For the rest of use, the majority of Americans, as well as our founders, the Creator is no "Concept".

Never said He was. -- You need to learn how to argue rationally.

[wpa_mikeb]

1980? First you talked about 2000 and then 2004....now you’re going back to 1980?

Ooookay.

Why do Ron Paul supporters dive into name calling when asked a question?

Odd.

[DoughtyOne]

Well I didn’t mean 1980. I did mean the year 2000 which you focused on in your first post. So far you haven’t taken care of the year 2000, so I certainly wouldn’t ask you to move on.

As for supporting Paul, if one of us is, it would have to be you. I don’t. That’s just one more thing you’ve gotten wrong since your first post.

You don’t know who the candidates were in 2000. You weren’t able to read this thread and determine that I don’t support Paul. Let me know if you need anything else clarified for you.

[traviskicks]

One that doesn’t expand medicare and pass legislation like ‘no child left behind’, just to name a few....

[AwesomePossum]

Touché

[Theodore R.]

I honestly believe that the American people would sooner vote for Pol Pot for President than Ron Paul, but many Republicans may want to vote for Paul in the primary to show their frustration with the GOP “leadership”. If Paul were nominated, the RNC would back HRC!!!