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

To: bcsco
In all honesty, I've been on most Ron Paul threads here on FR.

Well, you didn't prove it by posting on them. Sorry, you're not in the big leagues as a Paul-hater. Not trying to impugn your credentials or anything but I don't think you could find many RP supporters who put you in that category.

What I'm calling for is a moratorium. You say you have a candidate who'll satisfy conservative values, fine. Prove it! Meanwhile I'll ask my fellow conservatives to hold obnoxious comment. But you'll have to redefine yourselves! You're NOT conservatives; you're libertarians. Identify, be honest, and we just might respond. Otherwise, forget it.

You can ask them. They won't pay attention to you. That would spoil their little trolling hobby. Any more than an RP supporter paid attention when I was trying to get him to tone down on a Fred thread and let them have their opening day in peace. So they'll just ignore you, like they ignore everyone else.

Personally, I am not a Libertarian, have never been, never will be. I don't like their default pro-abortion position, their open-borders position, their completely unfettered free-trade policy, their position advocating legalizing even the worst narcotics. I don'd agree with that. Ron Paul would lose me as a supporter if he agreed with them on that. Now, of course there are a few Libertarians supporting Ron Paul who might take issue with my characterization of the LP but that's just my position. I am a Republican and a conservative. And if you think that somehow that excludes a strong position favoring liberty and libertarian values, I commend the Ronald Reagan's well-known defense of libertarian Republicans to you. He certainly grasped the fundamental conservative values of libertarian small-government Republicans. Like me. Like Ron Paul.

Of course, you're free to try to win without us. But you might recall the 2000 race and just how many votes you want to discard in key states because they just aren't "pure" enough for you. Me, I don't pretend to be the official litmus-test guy for my candidate and for the eventual GOP nominee.
305 posted on 09/05/2007 3:06:48 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies ]


To: George W. Bush
Personally, I am not a Libertarian, have never been, never will be. I don't like their default pro-abortion position, their open-borders position, their completely unfettered free-trade policy, their position advocating legalizing even the worst narcotics. I don'd agree with that. Ron Paul would lose me as a supporter if he agreed with them on that. Now, of course there are a few Libertarians supporting Ron Paul who might take issue with my characterization of the LP but that's just my position. I am a Republican and a conservative. And if you think that somehow that excludes a strong position favoring liberty and libertarian values, I commend the Ronald Reagan's well-known defense of libertarian Republicans to you. He certainly grasped the fundamental conservative values of libertarian small-government Republicans. Like me. Like Ron Paul.

Let me post this from the book: "Reagan In His Own Name"; a quote from page #479: "Possibly Vietnam was the wrong war, in the wrong place a the wrong time. But when 50,000 Young Americans make the ultimate sacrifice to defend the people of a small defenseless country against the Godless tyrrany [sic] of communism that is not an act of "moral" poverty. It is in truth an act a collective act of moral courage.

It is time we recognized that the veterans of that war fought as bravely & effectively as any American fighting men ever fought in any war and did so with one hand tied behind their backs by O their own govt. It is time we told them that never again will we allow the immorality of asking young men to fight & die in a war our govt. is afraid to let them win."

Let me ask you this: Do you honestly believe (forget all the rhetoric of whether Congress voted for war or not) Ronald Reagan would be happy with the anti-war rhetoric coming from both the anti-war left and the Ron Paul camps today? Oh, and don't try to qualify the rhetoric from the Ron Paul camps as not anti-war. It is.

IMHO, this is EXACTLY where you Ron Paul defenders subvert yourselves. You use Ronald Reagan but misunderstand him. He may have made use of a libertarian such as Ron Paul, or whoever, but he was a true conservative. If you are a true conservative, then I believe you need to requalify your beliefs and come to an understanding how they align with libertarianism. Because, believe me, once all is said and done, should Ron Paul ascend to the Presidency, libertarianism will rule the day should Congress be amenable. And I don't believe you will want to take that chance.

308 posted on 09/05/2007 3:35:52 PM PDT by bcsco ("The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies ]

To: George W. Bush
Let me be perfectly clear. When you or Ron Paul, or anyone, associates with anyone who harbors the idea that the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the War on Terror whatever, is misguided if only because of a failure by Congress to declare war you are aligning yourselves with this:

Chuck Schumer Addresses Troops in Anbar: You Failed.

Quotes: " Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight al-Qaeda ourselves."

"It wasn't that the surge brought peace here, it was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here and that was because there was no one else there protecting."

This is from Chuck Schumer. This might as well have been form Ron Paul. You want to quote Reagan? Stuff it!

310 posted on 09/05/2007 3:48:29 PM PDT by bcsco ("The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies ]

To: George W. Bush
********Personally, I am not a Libertarian, have never been, never will be. I don’t like their default pro-abortion position, their open-borders position, their completely unfettered free-trade policy, their position advocating legalizing even the worst narcotics. I don’d agree with that. Ron Paul would lose me as a supporter if he agreed with them on that. Now, of course there are a few Libertarians supporting Ron Paul who might take issue with my characterization of the LP but that’s just my position. I am a Republican and a conservative. And if you think that somehow that excludes a strong position favoring liberty and libertarian values, I commend the Ronald Reagan’s well-known defense of libertarian Republicans to you. He certainly grasped the fundamental conservative values of libertarian small-government Republicans. Like me. Like Ron Paul.******

Ron Paul is pro life. He is against open borders. Although he talks about unfettered free trade, he would finance the federal government with a uniform, but not a protectionist tariff. Frankly, his trade policy was the main thing I disagreed with, until I found out he would finance the federal government with tariffs.

Drugs are a difficult situation. I would ten times rather my children smoked pot than drank alcohol. Alcohol is one of the most destructive drugs in the world, so it is hard to see that any other drug could be worse. But alcohol is legal in this country. Most of the bad things about other drugs are because they are illegal and costly. I would never trust a coke head, as the cost of their habit makes them steal from their mothers. On the whole, I think legalizing drugs would be less costly to our society.

373 posted on 09/05/2007 8:17:08 PM PDT by jmeagan (Our last chance to change the direction of the country--Ron Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies ]

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