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
It is in our national security interests to do so.
Here's a better idea and another one that Ron Paul supports - try lessening the government regulations and control on our own oil businesses so they can build more refineries here so we can process our OWN oil reserves (think An-war, etc.).
It's not the government regulations so much as the constant barrage of lawsuits. The regulations are used by the environmentalists and lawyers to throttle the building of refineries and using our oil shale resources.
ANWAR has about 600 days worth of oil if it was our exclusive source. Opening up our entire continental shelf would help. We'll have to throw the lawyers and environmentalists in the gulag or something. (Kidding Mr. O'Reilly- get a life)
Want to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels? Think nuclear. Something else Dr. Paul supports but the environmental wackos constantly decry as unsafe (never mind that a good hunk of Europe has been using is safely for a long time). It's good enough to power our ships and submarines but not good enough to heat and cool our homes?? Yeah, right!
You will find few FReepers disagreeing with you on this. The problem remains implementation. A recent documentary stated that if we were to start tomorrow, a nuclear plant would take close to 40 years to be finished. The obstacle again is endless lawsuits by the environmentalists. How does Ron Paul plan on shutting these people up and take away their laws that they are pummeling our energy companies with?
60% of our oil is imported. That is a huge amount of oil. Even if we started building nuke plants like crazy and told the wacko's to go to hell, It would still take 4 to 6 years (maybe longer) to bring enough nuclear energy on-line to replace the imported oil. Then there is the infrastructure cost transitioning from oil to electric transportation.
Nuclear bombs could put much of the productive oil fields out of commission for a number of years. The Strait of Hormuz could be made impassable. Our economy runs on oil. Take the oil away, much of our economy withers and dies. All of the easy solutions would require 4 to 5 years to get into place and at great cost when our economy is suffering.
If you haven't noticed, we have nuts with nukes and nuts that are attempting to acquire nukes in the Middle East. Ron Paul says "we will only defend ourselves on our own soil" Sorry that was probably not an exact quote, but that is what I gather from listening to his supporters.
What will we defend ourselves with? Our armies and military run on oil.
Ron Paul and Ahmadinejad seem to support the same future where the USA is brought to it's knees.
Except, that they quite obviously should NOT have been.
The way to beat insurgents is to use old school counter-insurgent tactics. That's what we're doing, and it's working like a charm.
Old school? You mean like using Privateers to hunt down pirates? Wouldn't a more 21st century approach involve massive air bombardment and the use of every major piece of artillery we can ship over there?
You seem to be rather limited in the scope of this thing. This isn't just Iraq. This is militant Islam we are fighting and we need to go after EVERY Nation that harbors it without a fight.
Otherwise, this cancer will continue to spread and it WILL kill more of us.
Expending 130,000 rounds to kill one "insurgent" and still losing more of our military personnel doesn't seem like progress to me. Nor does having the asinine ROE that would be better suited to POLICE roles than it would military in a hostile zone.
The Mods highlighted some of those parts in red. Pretty easy to discern.
So you think the Government did a fine job securing our Country prior to 9-11?
Go find where I said that.
Do you disagree with his position on arming airline pilots?
You can pull little snippets out of context if you like; I'm not that gullible.
You know full well which of Paul's policies I disagree with. Wanting to surrender to al Qaeda is cowardly, leftist and reprehensible, IMO. You can use whateer pretty words you want, it's still surrendering to the terrorists.
You have fun mocking Ron Paul, and I have fun mocking the mockers.
Yes, and with the multitudes who are mocking him, you always seem to choose to come after me. I wonder why that is? You can't possibly think I'm more malleable than the others. Then agan, that is just insulting enough, so perhaps that is the reason.
Anyway, it's pointless. The day I support and cut-and-run advocate will be the day Hell freezes over.
And in the meantime, I will continue to laugh at Ron Paul and his slavishly devoted supporters.
I support Bush and seems you just said you do. So I am a bit confused.
As far as protecting interest I am mainly refering to our Asian and European interest however our intrest is making any and every attempt to secure the middle east plays into that at least until we secure more oil resources over here, which ain’t happening anytime soon.
I do find it interesting that you complain about nation building and then support Bush. It is also intersting that you say several republicans running understand the threat and mention Paul among them.
Curious as to why you're not answering Mr. Silverback's post.
He dragged Germany into a hugely bloody, ruinous war that left much of his own country in rubble and poverty.
The hell he didn't sell 'em out.
First off, I'd like to thank you for your reasoned and civil response.
One of the agencies that Ron Paul would like to shut down is the EPA. Without the backing of the fedgov, the greenies would have MUCH less power and funding which would, by extension, allow us to get started building more refineries, doing more exploration and working on the infrastructure changes necessary to switch over to nuclear. I think the BIGGEST thing I agree with Dr. Paul about is that we have too much government involvement and control (especially at the federal level where it's harder for the average American to have a real say in what happens) in our lives and in our businesses (which is a big reason that so many are moving outside the country - cheap labor isn't the only reason.
Many people don't seem to realize that a great many of these groups and organizations that are harming America are, in fact, being funded by our own tax dollars. Case in point is the racist group La Raza (The Race) that has been supporting illegal immigration and open borders for years and they're certainly not the only ones. Several of the greenie-meanies are also recipients of our tax dollars. Dr. Paul seems to understand that some of the few powers actually granted to the fedgov are the protection of our borders and the protection of the liberties of the individual (no 'group' rights - only individual rights) and he wants to remove the fedgov from all the rest. Remember that even Ron Reagan campaigned on shutting down the Fed. Dept. of Education (that Jimmy Carter had created in exchange for the backing of the NEA during his campaign) so shutting down these federal agencies isn't as far afield from Republican principles as some seem to think.
My point being that without all the federal control and backing, we could conceivably get back to the mind set and methods of doing business that made this the most prosperous and innovative nation on the planet and the only candidate I see that advocates this is Dr. Paul even though I personally like Tom Tancredo better because I've actually gotten to spend quite a bit of time with him over the past few years. Duncan Hunter would be my next choice and, frankly, the rest of the pack just about scares my underalls off!
Then, as Ron Paul voted to authorize, we go after the PERPETRATORS, namely, Bin Laden. Iraq was not behind 9/11. In fact, if was can believe the intel, the pilots were Saudis....did we go after Saudi Arabia? Nope...cause they're our 'friends'. Of course, here we go with blowback things again.....who trained Bin Laden? Who put Saddam in power (even though it's never been proven that he had squat to do with 9/11 and the plan for invading Iraq had already been written back when Clinton was still in office)? Actions have consequences and unless and until we learn to keep our nose where it belongs, this mess is never going to end. Please go to either video.google.com or youtube.com and search for a movie called The Money Masters. It's 3 1/2 hours long and I'd honestly like to continue our little debate after you've seen it. It's quite the eye opener not only about our money supply but who's pulling the strings as regards a lot of the world's wars.
Yeh Ron Paul is a shrimp expert.
Dr. Paul understands the principles that guide our country and wants to preserve them. He also understands there are ways to conduct business, protect our economic interests, remain strong, and still leave folks in the dust who do not give a rats behind about the freedoms we enjoy.
The candidates I do not want to see in public office are the moral relativists who would shape our principles according to definitions *opposite* of what our founding fathers intended. Public officials ought first and foremost be about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” on the part of their constituency. I see President Bush in that camp, as well as a handful of other Republican candidates.
Those who percevie Dr. Paul as a cut and run, kow-towing defeatist in this struggle are dead wrong. They can’t see the forest for the trees, and that forest is adherence in practice to the founding documents of our Constitution. Of all the candidates he seems to get it best.
I hope the other candidates are listening, although it appears a good many merely bring out the broad brush of ridicule rather than think things through. The wisdom of spending our precious blood and resources to establish freedom in the midst of peoples who despise it is worth debating, and that is why I do not by any means chalk Dr. Paul up as a “loon.”
hocndoc: There are consequences to aggression and fraud of the sort that Saddam committed against our Nation. Enforcing those consequences is not aggression.Mr. S: Operation Iraqi Freedom--Definition: The resumption of hostilities with Iraq when that nation egregiously and repeatedly violated the cease fire agreement signed with the United States in 1991.
Exactly, with penalties.
It isn't aggression or intervention to monitor against fraud or to enforce agreements, and to carry through with our contracts, even if someone else commits fraud.
Like it or not, our defense cannot stop at our borders. It didn't at Tripoli (Barbary) and Montezuma (Mexico City) and it can't now, when we must defend against aircraft, missiles, bioweapons.
We can't start each day as though there are no complications from yesterday. As the exchange with Roh of Korea demonstrates, there are complications of history. We'd better have leaders willing to and able to protect us against frauds and aggressors or we won't have a future.
The RPers joined have become the blame America first, punish America only, crowd. Mr. Silverback thanks for all that information. I'm saving this thread.
Amen.
Well done....
Ron Paul’s getting the treatment that the liberals (in the Democrat and Republican parties) gave to Barry Goldwater in 64. They said Barry and his supporters were nuts. It was easier to ridicule and laugh than to debate Goldwater on his small-government, pro-Constitution philosohpy. From the frantic responses he’s getting - and the slime tactics against him, right out of the standard liberal playbook - I have to judge that Ron Paul has hit a nerve and he’s doing something right.
Bush supposedly went against the Constitution. That is the crux of everything Paul is complaining about, and you support as his point.
Yet you say Bush gets it. You have to understand my confusion.
Or perhaps not...
Ron Paul isn’t handsome, that’s for sure. But his ideas are much closer to the Constitution than the more telegenic candidates. What do you want, good principles or good looks?
Dinner, lawn mowing, Scout meeting, garbage night, and work tomorrow mostly.
So I'll look up Mr Silvers post and respond shortly.
L
Remember that Constitution thingy? Whose candidacy most closely follows it?
It seems that a lot of the Ron Paul bashers are the country club Republicans who like the big government programs and so don’t like Dr. Paul threatening them.
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.