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
bookmark
Because Bin Laden "had broken no American laws".
Guess who else said we would deal with the people who did those attacks? Bill Clinton.
OK so you can't dig up any quotes of Pauls saying he wouldn't deal with those attacks. You could have just said that.
Let me ask you a serious question. I mean, seriously think this one over: Have you ever, even once in your life, heard of a Jewish person asking "why did Hitler hate us? Shouldn't we figure out what was making him so angry so we can avoid doing it again?" Have you ever heard of someone saying, "If the Jews would have just done X differently, maybe Hitler wouldn't have put them on the cattlecars"?
No I haven't Now let me ask you a serious question. What the Hell does that have to do with what we're talking about? Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they didn't like our foreign policy. Germany sank our ships because they didn't like our foreign policy. Germany bombed London because they didn't like British foreign policy. What the hell is the matter with you that you can't simply admit that our policies have consequences attached to them?
No suprise to see a circular argument from a Paulestinian
I'm not one. I'm a Thompson guy. And I'll thank you to stop the insults.
1. What is the reason you can't take toothpaste or shampoo on flights anymore?
We can.
2. Would armed pilots be able to stop a liquid bomb?
An unarmed airline flight attendant managed to stop Richard Reid, so yes I think they could.
3. Would armed pilots on September 11th killing 19 guys who planned to die anyway have stopped Al Qaida from attacking airliners with explosives?
As I said above, an unarmed female flight attendant managed to stop an AQ bomber. An armed pilot would have blown his head off and the rest of the flight wouldn't have been spent listening to Reids insane ramblings.
L
Bush already did that. So by your logic he's an American hating Al Queda sympathizer....
L
And as anyone who's known me through my years of posting here can tell you, I do NOT lie. I'm not saying that I've never made a mistake but I do NOT lie and, in the cases where I've erred, I've tried to be very quick to admit it. Herein lies your problem though; anyone can sign up here and claim they're currently serving or did serve and be lying through their teeth...you and I would never know one way or the other so it doesn't really matter in this type of venue whether someone claims to have been told or whether they say it themselves - there's really no way to actually verify either so give it a rest.
And if they are capable of destroying and conquering America, why does our current administration continue to allow into our country, tens of thousands of Muslims routinely and legally?
EEE, I must admit, you had me fooled.
I bought into your claim that you disagreed with Paul on two issues, one of which was his opposition to the Iraq War.
But after that post, which is something I would expect from the likes of Cindy Sheehan and not someone of your professed views, I can only re-classify you into the ranks of the moonbats you profess to be above.
But the young are with us, and so are Americans of every stripe.
What Ru Paul was really thinking:
But the young who are with us we are eating, and so too Americans of every tripe.
What I don’t get is why all the talk about a guy who can’t get above 3% support in any national poll of Republican candidates.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm
It's FR. It happens for the same reason there are passionate Duncan Hunter and Sam Brownback supporters here. Truth be told any one of the three has about as much chance of winning the nomination as I do.
L
Go and read the bio on Ru Paul. Serve? Sure, he was in the military - briefly. But did he serve his country? No, he used his brief military experience to further his career aspirations and never was in any way involved in anything remotely like real service to this country.
I trust JR to pay them out just enough slack to hang themselves...
I’m not the one who called any specific names. You’re the one who keeps trying to put words in other’s mouths and throwing up asinine straw-man arguments. The point IS that it’s very hard to actually prove or disprove anything on-line in the way of conversations unless it was something that was said on TV and, unless you’re REALLY dense, you had to have understood that.
Very well said and many points that I have not seen addressed by the Ron Paul supporters.
Fine YOU follow the crowd over the cliff.
Again, you are either Dick Durbin or posting through a time warp from last summer. Petraeus is applying old school tactics, which is why things are improving dramatically.
Nice attempt at a slam by trying to ad homenim paint me with those traitorous ANSWER retards.
It was not ad hominem, and it was accurate. Let me help you with your reasoning. You see, when someone on FR says, "Casualties are too high" or "we should use different tactics" I don't mention ANSWER, because even though ANSWER uses casualties, the casualty count is real and a valid concern, and their only mention of tactics has to do with either saying we should appease the enemy or that we are killing bunches of Iraqi civilians.
The reason I linked you with ANSWER is that "Mission Accomplished" is both:
1. A lie that anyone paying attention knows is a lie.
2. A talking point that is advanced by ANSWER and its constituent orgs, because they are comfortable lying about the war.
If you don't like being linked to people who lie about the war, don't repeat a lie they tell about the war.
Ok... so you don't like fighting the War on Terror against Terrorist supporting Nations like we did WWII.
No, you're the one who doesn't. In WWII we didn't give up and sulk in the corner after losing troops. We made the enemy sorry they had ever messed with us. What we're doing now is WWII strategy with Philipines-Malay-El Salvador tactics.
Really...if you're willing to quit fighting Al Qaida in a certain location after 3,700 casualties, why wouldn't you have been willing to quit fighting Germany after 6,000 casualties in three days at the Kasserine Pass?
You don't like using Privateers like we did with Barbary.
I never said that...I responded to your privateer post by defining what I meant by "old school counterinsurgency" Go back and look at the post. I have no beef against using privateers, but you're living in a dream world if you think that would be a winning strategy on its own.
BTW...why are the words "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Hymn? And why have there been five ships named USS Decatur?
You seem to think the current "troop surge" is working even though we are still spending a few hundred million per "insurgent" killed.
First, got a cite for that? I know that you cite a source for rounds expended later on, but last time I priced 5.56 ammo it didn't cost $10 dollars per round. In fact, it looks more like 21 cents.
Of course, I'm sure you're arriving at that figure by lumping in all the money we're spending in Iraq, even though much of that money covers expenses that we would incur no matter what tactics we used, or even if we were occupying Iraq or basing troops there without having to fight. Also, if you're saying we should "fight like WWII," but you are also concerned about cost, you might want to check out this chart.
But then, I guess I have to cede to your obvious brilliance; the measure of success in a military operation is not damage to the enemy or the achievement of objectives, it's the number of rounds fired and the amount of money spent. Man, you're a military genius!
Tell me, really: What amount of money would you be willing to save by giving Anbar back to Al Qaida? A billion, 100 billion? Really, what amount would you like to have back in return for going from one or zero attacks on our troops per day in Anbar to 35 per day?
We aren't even doing that much. This would be like trying the Island hopping by using door-to-door "knock and announce" tactics. If we used your examples, we'd still be trying to get that flag to the top of Mount Suribachi without success.
Yes, that's why the good guys are running Anbar. OK, I guess you aren't Dick Durbin, because at least he admits that the enemy is suffering. Be sure and tell some scientists about that time warp you're posting through, they may want to get some measurements and stuff before it collapses. BTW, I'm willing to give you stock picks and sports scores in return for just 20% of the resulting take. Let me know if you're interested.
Haven't been keeping abreast of the Haditha incident or any of the other crap our Troops are being charged with have you...
Again you show your cluelessness. Haditha was not the result of an ROE violation and you know it...or maybe you don't...in Summer 2006 the investigation was still going on.
Answer the questions: Can you quote those ROE? If so, can you tell me how many engagements in the current surge have fallen under "police" ROE?
If you aren't even that far up to speed, it's no wonder you think things are going perfectly and are incapable of imagining a better solution.
I never said anything of the sort, I just said that we've made a major tactical change and the enemy is now losing badly. War never goes perfectly, which is something microwave burrito warfare fans like yourselves never seem to get. In fact, there's a reason one of the best books on counter-insurgency is called "Learning to Eat Soup With A Knife." No matter how well it goes, eating soup with a knife is never going to be perfect, but right we're eating the soup in a big way. Your "better soultion," meanwhile, is to drop a brick in the soup bowl and expect to walk out with a clean shirt.
BTW, do you have any of those examples for me? You know, successful counter-insurgency campaigns that used massive strategic bombing and/or massed artillery? Keep in mind that I ask that even though I'm a SAC vet who believes it's beyond doubt that strategic bombing was essential to winning WWII and would have saved South Vietnam if the Congress hadn't cut and run.
Also, a quick "Google is your friend" search
It's not my job to back up your assertions. Suck it up.
I don't believe for a minute the main reason we're over there is oil, but what is amazing to me is the number of people who say "No blood for oil."
They would never say "No blood for drinking water." They would never say "No blood for food." They would never say that the Brits never should have given any sailor's lives in WWI and WWII to keep the sea lanes open and keep their people fed. Heck, if the only thing the Germans had been torpedoing was oil tankers, there's probably nobody who would say "The Royal Navy should never have given blood to obtain safe passage for oil."
Yet when it comes to oil, the substance we need to grow the food, transport the food, cook the food, have an economy that allows us to have jobs to buy the food, heat our houses so we don't freeze to death right after eating the food, etc., they think it's perfectly OK if we cede control of it to a bunch of nutcase terrorists. Real double bacon genius burgers.
Fine, how's the Bush/Rove room?
You are the biggest phony of them all.
Why, because I don't kiss the administration's ass like you do?
Anybody who doesn’t believe you and about 30 others are Plants are naive.
Whatever.
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.