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
2. 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?
no matter how restrictive out immigration policies get we will still need to nail terrorists overseas before they can strike.
You know, I read your response twice, but still didn't see an answer to either question.
How hilarious. I've never seen such a thing before.
/sarc
So... the Bombers are in the air then are they? Didn't think so...
If you don't like being linked to people who lie about the war, don't repeat a lie they tell about the war.
Now it is YOU that is lying. Didn't you just state that Bush's statement was an "end of major military operations"? But that now we needed a "troop surge"? You can spin with the best of them... that is for sure. However, my point isn't that we SHOULDN'T be fighting the War, but that we never should have had and "end" to major combat operations as there were STILL serious high value targets to take out. That you ignore this either means you are just another idiotic shill, or you aren't paying attention. I'm betting the latter...
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.
No... we aren't. Did we carpet bomb Fallujah? Do we have Al Sadr's head on a platter? Are we crossing the Parallel into Iran? Or are we treating them like Cambodia?
Again, your willful ignorance is astounding. Iran and Syria are complicit in what is happening in Iraq. We should be bombing the dog snot out of them RIGHT NOW. We never should have let up in Iraq and should annihilate any are the "insurgents" are attacking us from. I'm not calling for an END to the war, but an escalation before our Enemies get even stronger or political attrition kills support altogether in Congress.
Man, you're a military genius!
Compared to you, I'm friggin Sun Tzu And Alexander combined.
Also, since you didn't bother to click the Google link correcting my low ball "guestimate"... the GAO is estimating 250k-300k rounds have been expended PER insugent estimated killed. Read the Reason magazine article since it links to the GAO report.
It also isn't about the money, dumbass... It's about fighting effectively. Since we haven't stopped the insurgency in Iraq, I'd say your estimation on the current effectiveness is sorely mistaken. WWII only took 6 years from the time the Germans invaded Poland. We're going on what, five years now in ONE pissant Country and we STILL can't say the area is pacified.
So yeah, drop your opinion in the toilet 'cause you don't know sh*t...
I take it that the artwork was added to your thread courtesy of Free Republic?
Nice. /sarc off.
Succinct but right on the mark. I think it’s a spit in the face of the fine men and women of the world’s greatest military to spill their blood while leaving the back door to Mexico wide open. I think it’s treasonous and immoral beyond words.
It was cowardly and contepmtuous for a spineless Congress not to have the backbone to declare war.
All that follows from that makes all the “fight terrorism” talk here sound to me like the cacaphony of a whole lot of brainwashed people with only a superficial Sean- Hannity-soundbite idea of what it means to be a Republican.
Thanks... though, having been here since Feb of ‘98, I figure I’m past n00b stage by now...
Merci beaucoup, mon ami.
Oh really? I thought they were rhetorical, and I knew they were meant to manipulate how I would answer.
But what the hey, my position is strong enough that I can play your game, so let's go.
Exactly how would Islam take over and conquer America?
By converting America to Islam.
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?
1. Both of the following answers are correct:
Because they underestimate the threat from resident Muslims because the vast, vast majority of domestic Muslims have no interest in killing the infidel, they came to America to escape that crap.
1. They believe (correctly, thus far) that their security methods are working very well in preventing attacks.
Now, how about you answer my question?
OK, let's say that there's nothing that can be done about Islamic terror other than excluding Muslims from target areas. Let's also say that we immediately pass immigration laws banning entry by Muslims, and we revoke all current visas and green cards and send everyone here legally packing.Now...what are you going to do with Americans who are Muslims? Internment camps? Machine gunning? What's the plan?
Thanks Lurker...
There's no need to resort to childish, immature mis-spellings of Dr. Paul's name. The man is a great-grandfather with strong Christian values. His name is Ron Paul, not Ru Paul.
Serve? Sure, he was in the military - briefly. But did he serve his country?
As an ENT doctor to pilots, Paul performed a very valuable service. Pilots are at a higher risk for respiratory ailments than non-pilots. And this was during the air bombing campaign of Vietnam where Paul's service was needed.
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.
He was drafted into the Air Force for that very role, so I see no need to denigrate his service just because he didn't have his boots on the ground or engaged in actual combat. Paul didn't run to Canada, or made excuses for not joining like Rudy and Romney did. He wore the uniform, he later reached the rank of military captain when he was in the Air National Guard. You know, the same branch of service Bush served in and "only" learned how to fly a bomber. FReepers defended his service from the MSM and liberals then, but somehow Paul's service is not valuable. Hypocrites, all you guys.
OK...you want to ignore the facts on the ground and consider us successful only if we do what you prefer for us to do. So basically, you're Dick Durbin with bombers. Bravo.
Now it is YOU that is lying.
Aw, that's so cute! Let's see what you've come up with to "prove" that.
Didn't you just state that Bush's statement was an "end of major military operations"? But that now we needed a "troop surge"? You can spin with the best of them... that is for sure.
Oh...well then, please go ahead and prove that I lied: Show me where I said that no major military action was needed. Not where I said what Bush said, but where I said it.
Man, just quit digging. In May of 2003 there was hardly an insurgency and the President expected the "dead-enders" to be cleaned up. That didn't happen, and later on a new offensive was needed. So...Bush didn't lie, I didn't lie, you are still clueless.
However, my point isn't that we SHOULDN'T be fighting the War, but that we never should have had and "end" to major combat operations as there were STILL serious high value targets to take out. That you ignore this either means you are just another idiotic shill, or you aren't paying attention. I'm betting the latter...
Aw, that's cute too! Hey...how many guys in the deck of cards were still at large six months after the President declared "major combat operations" were over. And also, can you provide a list of targets we should have bombed with B-52s. Because you know, if you're paying so much more attention than me, you should know what we should have carpet bombed in May and June of '03. Serve it up.
No... we aren't. Did we carpet bomb Fallujah? Do we have Al Sadr's head on a platter? Are we crossing the Parallel into Iran? Or are we treating them like Cambodia?
Let's take Fallujah as an example. Read the section on Fallujah in America's Victories by Larry Schweikart and then get back to me about how we didn't make anyone in Fallujah sorry.
Al Sadr recently agreed to disarm his militias. I know he hasn't done that yet in the summer of '06, but he will, so place a bet somewhere and send me my 20% cut. I believe if he's lying about it he will be dead within a month.
No, the surge is about solving these problems, and it's working.
Again, your willful ignorance is astounding. Iran and Syria are complicit in what is happening in Iraq. We should be bombing the dog snot out of them RIGHT NOW.
I'd like to see that too and have said so on FR more than once, but there's a difference between recognizing and criticizing imperfect strategy and blindly ignoring successes. You're doing the latter.
Compared to you, I'm friggin Sun Tzu And Alexander combined.
Ah yes...I'm sure the maxim that "Military success depends entirely on how many rounds are expended and how much money we spent" will go down in history as pure greatness.
Also, since you didn't bother to click the Google link correcting my low ball "guestimate"...
Actually, I did.
It also isn't about the money, dumbass... It's about fighting effectively.
Sure. That's why you mentioned millions of dollars inn the next post. That's why you're ignoring the successes, because it's so much about fighting effectively that you can't be bothered to pay any attention to effective fighting.
Since we haven't stopped the insurgency in Iraq, I'd say your estimation on the current effectiveness is sorely mistaken.
Yep, the surge is only two months old, so it's obviously a massive failure. You know, when American troops are taking 35 attacks a day in an operating area and that area experiences 0 or 1 attacks per day 2 months later, that really goes to show that we aren't getting anything done. I thought killing the enemy, destroying his ability to mount attacks and getting the population on our side was a good thing, but fortunately you've shown me the error of my ways. Truly, you are a great warrior.
WWII only took 6 years from the time the Germans invaded Poland. We're going on what, five years now in ONE pissant Country and we STILL can't say the area is pacified.
Another empty-suit lib talking point, for two reasons.
1. WWII was the highest intensity conflict ever on the planet, and it killed about 70 million people. While some tactical examples (the Kasserine Pass, for instance) are useful for illustration when discussing Iraq, comparing the timeline of the two is like asking why a can't haul reach high branches with its trunk.
2. Actually, it's 1,400 years and counting.
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.
Yes, we had Republicans as delegates to our Republican Straw Poll.
In order to be a delegate, you had to have been a delegate or alternate delegate to one of the last 4 State Conventions. I think our County sent 62 delegates plus 62 alternates to the ‘06 State Republican Convention. In order to be a delegate or alternate delegate, you have to vote in the primary, let your precinct Chair/judge know that you want to be chosen and be part of the slate elected at the County Convention. You don’t even have to attend the Precinct or County conventions. Certainly no “official position.”
I was encouraged that Duncan Hunter won, in spite of all the money and trees spent by RP’s followers. It was very encouraging that Fred Thompson beat RP, even before Thompson declared and even without showing up. We Texas Republicans are pretty savvy, and didn’t take the heckling, harassment and booing from the RP crowd.
I didn’t change dirtboy. I’m saying that it would be damn near impossible for terrorists to “come over here” when you consider that Dr. Paul supports border security and a strong national defense, not to mention a missile defense system (Paul supported Reagan’s SDI in the 80s, BTW). I still don’t agree with Paul on an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but given the choice between that and staying in Iraq for the next 20-50 years and our troops being the equivalent of a giant can of Raid trying to kill every last terrorist possible at a cost of $200 billion a year, I’ll take the former.
Actually, that was the F-102 Delta Dagger, an interceptor, not a bomber.
FReepers defended his service from the MSM and liberals then, but somehow Paul's service is not valuable. Hypocrites, all you guys.
I will be glad to be corrected if I'm wrong, but in all my time on Ron Paul threads Soldier Dad is the only guy I've seen question Paul's service. You see...
There is a very big difference between denigrating someone's service and saying that it doesn't mean they get a free pas for life.
There is a very big difference between denigrating someone's service and rejecting the idea that it makes them a superior thinker on defense issues.
There is a very big difference between denigrating someone's service and rejecting the idea that being an Air Force doctor makes one especially qualified to command the world's most powerful military.
There is a very big difference between denigrating someone's service and rejecting the idea that cut-and-run is now acceptable strategy if the bonehead saying it once wore a uniform.
You write well, EEE.
Bravo to a hero, Dr Ron Paul!
No, you don't get it. I never insinuated that at all, that Paul is qualified to be CIC because of his military service. No, not at all. I'm saying that it's disingenuous when FReepers dismiss Paul's service as if it was a week in summer camp or something. Paul's military service is just as honorable as those who died in the battlefields, and it's annoying when holier-than-thou types sneeringly look down on Paul because he was in a non-combat role. The same FReepers who rightfully defended Bush's service against Kerry and the MSM are now dismissing Paul's service like a joke, never mind that Paul served in the same branch that Bush did in his last 3 years. I'm not saying that Paul's service exempts him from criticism. Criticize Paul's foreign policy all you want, Hell I'm not completely sold on it too but there's no need to bash his military service.
I understand. I guess we’re both making a point about people who are acting like jerks rather than each other. Never mind.
By converting America to Islam.
2. 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?
Muslims have no interest in killing the infidel, they came to America to escape that crap. They believe (correctly, thus far) that their security methods are working very well in preventing attacks.
On one hand you say you're afraid Islam will conquer and take over America by converting us all to Islam, yet you say the tens of thousands of Muslims Bush is routinely importing into America have no interesting in killing us or taking us over.
My question was if they, the Muslims are capable of destroying and conquering America, (which you stated will be done by converting us all) why does our current administration continue to allow into our country, tens of thousands of Muslims routinely and legally? (Which you stated those being imported are no threat to us).
Your question is what do we do with American citizens, that were born and raised here? Are they a problem? I don't think so. Maybe there are a few nuts between them, but do you think these few native American citizens that happen to be Muslims are actually capable of destroying and conquering America?
Yes or no?
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.