Posted on 09/07/2007 10:40:07 AM PDT by NapkinUser
Edited on 09/07/2007 2:31:57 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Has this been a hectic and encouraging time! First we got almost 17% in the Texas straw poll, an event set-up to represent the establishment, with very restrictive voting rules. That 17% of the Republican hierarchy would support our views, after a full day of pro-war propaganda, is good news. Then we won the more open Maryland Republican straw poll with 28%. In both cases, as usual, hard-working, well-organized volunteers made all the difference.
The Fox debate was a lot of fun as well. It's true that a few of the network people are not exactly with us on foreign or domestic policy (though one famous guy whispered to me that he is a libertarian), but the audience—with lots of students from the University of New Hampshire—was definitely fair and balanced, as their enthusiastic reaction showed.
My opponents called for more war, more torture, more secret prisons, more eavesdropping, more presidential power. Some seemed to identify the government and the people as if they were one entity. But you and I know that once the government moves beyond its very limited constitutional mandate, it is an opponent of the people, a rip-off operation that takes our money and our freedom and our social peace, and gives us a mess of statist pottage in return.
The government failed miserably on 911 to protect us, despite spending trillions. So the answer was supposed to be the giant, socialist Department of Homeland Security, protecting you and me from taking our toothpaste on the airplane. I was ridiculed for saying that the airlines, which know best how to protect their property, should have been allowed to arm their pilots. But then, you and I really believe in the Second Amendment. It is not just a political slogan for us.
When I discussed the blowback that came from us intervening on the Arabian peninsula, Chris Wallace asked me if I wanted to follow the marching orders of al-Qaeda. I responded that I wanted to follow the marching orders of the Constitution, and not wage undeclared, aggressive wars that cause us only trouble. This is a mystifying to some, of course, but not to more and more Americans.
There was much talk of taxes, and a pledge not to raise rates. But as usual, I was not allowed to discuss my lifelong pledge to abolish the income tax. Just holding the line, when the government takes such vast sums through an illegitimate guilty-until-proven-innocent system, is hardly enough. We need to slash taxes and spending if we are to have a future of prosperity for ourselves and our families.
After the debate, many young people gathered around the stage to discuss our ideas and ask questions about them (and to have me sign their badges). My colleagues got no such response, and after a few moments, "security" ordered me off the stage. Can't have any such demonstration of interest in liberty.
But the young are with us, and so are Americans of every stripe. Even party officials. When one of my opponent said it was OK to lose elections through supporting the Iraq war, that set party people's teeth on edge, and rightly so. The Republican party is shrinking. We need new people. It's either our ideas or President Hillary, and more and more people recognize it.
But the media, and everyone else, will be looking at fundraising totals at the end of this month. They'll judge us by how we do. And we need help to wage what we hope will be a full-scale, 50-state campaign. Please help me head into the next quarter fully armed to do battle for freedom, peace and prosperity. Make your most generous contribution https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/. This Revolution is on the move, but it very much needs your support.
Sincerely,
Ron
The moderators added the picture and the red text in the article, not me. I support Ron Paul.
Live long and prosper...(chuckle)
"A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people, than under the forbidding appearances of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us, that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism, than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career, by paying an obsequious court to the people."
The Federalist
Plus, the Paul threads are the most fun of any type of thread, save DUmmie FUnnies.
Been there done that..
Ron Paul is for big tax cuts, massive spending cuts, states' rights, ending entitlement programs, abolishing the department of education and the department of energy and a very limited role for the federal government.
Sounds pretty conservative to me.
Or do you have to support interventionalist foreign policy and secretive government intrusion into peoples' private lives in order to be a 'Rush Limbaugh conservative'?
Sure, and Bill Clinton taking a non-interventionist approach to dealing with bin Laden has absolutely nothing to do with that, right, Ron?
So the answer was supposed to be the giant, socialist Department of Homeland Security, protecting you and me from taking our toothpaste on the airplane.
Wow, I guess those guys at Homeland Security hate toothpaste. They couldn't possibly be doing that because of intel about a bomb plot at Heathrow that would have involved smuggling liquids and gels onto 10 planes.
I was ridiculed for saying that the airlines, which know best how to protect their property, should have been allowed to arm their pilots.
By morons, not by the administration or the conservatives that you and your supporters are always portraying as traitors, Ron. Oh, and be sure, Ronnie, to let us know how a gun stops a bomb from blowing the plane in half at 40,000 feet.
When I discussed the blowback that came from us intervening on the Arabian peninsula, Chris Wallace asked me if I wanted to follow the marching orders of al-Qaeda. I responded that I wanted to follow the marching orders of the Constitution, and not wage undeclared, aggressive wars that cause us only trouble. This is a mystifying to some, of course, but not to more and more Americans.
Actually, I think between the two of them, wideawake and Ramesh Ponnuru have said it all on the "blowback" issue. The comment in brackets is mine.
Al-Qaeda hates and targets America because America is : (a) powerful and (b) not Muslim.Al-Qaeda's goal is a restoration of the world to what they perceive to be its golden age: an era when an armed Islam united under a supreme Caliph was the world's uncontested superpower.
Anything America does or fails to do is a sufficient excuse for their hatred.
Modifying our policies in any way will not change the fact that we are powerful and not Muslim.
16 posted on 05/17/2007 11:58:35 AM PDT by wideawake
_____________________________________________
It is one thing to make a case on the merits that our foreign policies should be changed. Perhaps we should end our alliance with Israel. Perhaps we should remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, or lift the sanctions on Iraq. But not under duress. A policy designed to keep from offending people who might be inclined to attack us is a policy of preemptive capitulation to terrorists. In his address to Congress, President Bush explained why the terrorists kill: "With every atrocity they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends." The terrorists' hope is the frank advice of those who would have us back away from Israel because of the September 11 attacks [or run out of Iraq like scalded dogs].
Dishonorable in principle, such a policy would also fail in practice. There would be no obvious stopping-point to it. Having seen terrorism accomplish its objectives in the Mideast, why should North Korea not use it to make us withdraw our protection from South Korea? Beijing could sponsor terrorism until we let it swallow Taiwan. In the past, Puerto Rican independistas have resorted to terror. Etc. Shall we capitulate to them all?
Here, then, is the true strategy being recommended to America: Curl up and die.--Ramesh Ponnuru
We’re still in Iraq, and we are experiencing successes, so I’d say it’s more than pretty words our President has spoken.
“Ron, Noam Chomsky called. He wants his spiel back.”
LOL!
He didn’t put it there, the Mods did...
HAHAHAA...
God help me, THAT was funny...
They probably all greet each other like that at their meet-ups. Can you imagine attending one of those?
I'd be laughing so hard, I'd probably need to go to the ER for bursting some innard.
If that was all that Paul stood for, then we wouldn't be having these debates now would we.. a lot of people stand for these things; Hunter, Thompson, & Tancredo for example.
“He writes like a fourteen year old girl.”
Like, fer sure!
I did a search, but had no luck.
They use a different hand signal than the one Spock uses when they are at the Stormfront-sponsored Ron Paul meetups.
They probably all greet each other like that at their meet-ups. Can you imagine attending one of those?
I’d be laughing so hard, I’d probably need to go to the ER for bursting some innard.
Actually, I think its more likely they attend ‘Plushy Conventions’.
Please don’t make me explain it in an open forum......ROTFL!
Ron Paul on Declarations of War
If Ron Paul would really be glad to fight against our enemies as long as there was a formal declaration of war, why did he vote for the September 14, 2001 "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," which...
...was not a declaration of war (at least not in the sense of "declaration of war" Ron Paul supporters use on this board).
...was not confined to any particular nation even though we were already sure that Afghanistan was harboring the home organization of the hijackers.
...gave the President authority to choose when to act, something Paul says was unconstitutional when we did it against Iraq.
...by Paul's own admittance, targeted "a group which is not a country."
And why did Paul call the September 14 resolution "[a] clear declaration of war" but claim that the Iraq authorization, which is much more specific, is not a declaration of war?
Seems like he's trying to have it both ways...one has to ask, "why?"
Source is here.
“I’ll trust someone who served (Ron Paul) over a draft-dodger (Giuliani) when it comes to issues of national security.”
I think you’re one napkin short of a dispenser.
It is what he refuses to stand against that is...
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.