GOP's Ron Paul wants all troops home

Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | 09/12/07 | JOEL CONNELLY

[US at Risk]

This article reiterates the point that troop withdrawls will be worldwide, not confined to the middle east. And the withdrawl from the mideast will be immediate.

If you were president, how fast and how far would you withdraw from Iraq?

As quickly as possible and as far away as possible. I think the military people have to tell you how fast you can do it safely, but it wouldn't be one of these things [where I would] wait six months to start. I would do it immediately; I would certainly move the Navy away from the shores of Iran — and from intimidating Iran and trying to provoke them and [to] spread the war….

Thanks for that link. I highlighted some phrases that are key for me. Safely, to me, doesn't just mean safely for our troops but safely for the Iraqi people and safely for our reputation in the ME.

[Iwo Jima]

He would radically downsize the federal government. "I don't think there is any need for the Department of Education, the Department of Energy or particularly the monstrous Department of Homeland Security," he said Tuesday. Asked what role he sees for the federal government in education, Paul replied: "None. Nothing in the Constitution provides for a federal role."

Paul would seek to divest the federal government of its vast landholdings in the West. "I would always move in the direction of moving those lands to the states, except in special circumstances such as national parks."

Don't you agree with these statements? Every conservative should. If you don't, you just might be a liberal.

[MEGoody]

RP talks about actively seeking to overthrow R v. W, which would be a monumental advancement.

That's fine - other candidates want to do the same.

[Badeye]

‘Don’t you agree with these statements? Every conservative should. If you don’t, you just might be a liberal.’

You inadvertently touched on why nobody is flocking to the Ron Paul camp.

This nonsense ‘if you don’t agree with everything he says, your a LIBERAL!’ is absurd.

The fact is Congressman Paul’s position on the most important issue, the war, is more in line with Murtha and Pelosi.

Now, call me a liberal cause I disagreed with Obi Ron....(chuckle)

[dcwusmc]

Murder is NOT a legitimate federal crime. It is a STATE matter. But Dr. Paul has introduced a bill which would define life as starting at conception and then removes jurisdiction from the Federal Courts to hear cases opposing STATE laws protecting that life. If I recall my facts correctly.

[dcwusmc]

WHERE does the Constitution provide for keeping an army of occupation in over 130 countries around the world?

[Iwo Jima]

He was drawn to politics when President Nixon severed the connection between the dollar and gold in 1971.

You can't make this stuff up.

Why should you make stuff up? That was a correct conservative response to a very bad governmental action.

From the article:

He would radically downsize the federal government. "I don't think there is any need for the Department of Education, the Department of Energy or particularly the monstrous Department of Homeland Security," he said Tuesday. Asked what role he sees for the federal government in education, Paul replied: "None. Nothing in the Constitution provides for a federal role."

Paul would seek to divest the federal government of its vast landholdings in the West. "I would always move in the direction of moving those lands to the states, except in special circumstances such as national parks."

Don't you agree with these statements? Every conservative should. If you don't, you just might be a liberal.

[MEGoody]

Murder is NOT a legitimate federal crime. It is a STATE matter.

Yes, but I don't think it should be.

But Dr. Paul has introduced a bill which would define life as starting at conception and then removes jurisdiction from the Federal Courts to hear cases opposing STATE laws protecting that life.

In other words, yes, it is a child, but it's okay if your state wants to commit murder.

[Toddsterpatriot]

WHERE does the Constitution provide for keeping an army of occupation in over 130 countries around the world?

The same place where it says the money must be gold or silver. LOL!

[toddlintown]

“Right now, nobody threatens our national security.”

Except Ron Paul.

[Iwo Jima]

My, what a champion of the unborn. He's personally opposed, but . . .

Paul is in favor of state laws against abortion but is opposed to unconstitutional federal laws against murder, abortion, and thousands of other crimes. Just as any good conservative would be.

But then you knew that.

[Nephi]

Free Republic is still a conservative forum; what it isn't is a libertarian forum.

No, freerepublic isn't a conservative forum anymore. It is a neo-con globalist forum where dissent from war-mongering, nation building and policing the world is met with vitriolic attacks and invitations to leave, rather than reasoned discussion.

And Jim Robinson has the right to pronounce the tenets Free Republic embraces.

Never said JR didn't have that right, but pre-emptive, undeclared wars are unconstitutional and therefore, not conservative.

You have the right to disassociate yourself with FR should you disagree with those tenets.

Thanks, but I wasn't looking for your permission.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

My, what a champion of the unborn. He's personally opposed, but . . .

Perhaps you should re-read the quote again. He said no federal law. That means it goes back to the states. It's a federalist position, the same position as Fred Thompson's.

[bcsco]

but pre-emptive, undeclared wars are unconstitutional and therefore, not conservative.

Please provide specific passages. Oh, and don't bother with the 'undeclared wars' gambit. That's a specious argument. I want you to specifically address the 'preemptive war' issue based on Constitutional text.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Yep. . .just like John Kerry.

Dr. Paul is staunchly pro-life. I don't care if you criticize his foreign policy, but don't ever insinuate that he's pro-abortion. To do so reeks of dishonesty.

[bray]

Why are you being fooled by these clinton Chinese Mafia seminar posters??

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, freerepublic isn't a conservative forum anymore. It is a neo-con globalist forum where dissent from war-mongering, nation building and policing the world is met with vitriolic attacks and invitations to leave, rather than reasoned discussion.

I underlined your reasoned discussion. LOL!

[Iwo Jima]

I swear he sounds like a ranting liberal

If you think that this sounds like a ranting liberal, you sound like a ranting lunatic.

From the article:

He would radically downsize the federal government. "I don't think there is any need for the Department of Education, the Department of Energy or particularly the monstrous Department of Homeland Security," he said Tuesday. Asked what role he sees for the federal government in education, Paul replied: "None. Nothing in the Constitution provides for a federal role."

Paul would seek to divest the federal government of its vast landholdings in the West. "I would always move in the direction of moving those lands to the states, except in special circumstances such as national parks."

Don't you agree with these statements? Every conservative should. If you don't, you just might be a liberal.

[Iwo Jima]

Oh, OK. "This is just a wonderful, rosy World we live in, Ollie."

Strawman. No one ever said that this is a rosy world. It is not. That is why we have to pick our battles wisely and not get entangled in every conflict in the world.

[wideawake]

That was a correct conservative response to a very bad governmental action.

Not every conservative believes that the value of money should be tied to gold.

A conservative believes that the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the value of money - not whatever private or public entities manage to hoard the largest amount of a specific precious metal.

Don't you agree with these statements? Every conservative should. If you don't, you just might be a liberal.

Yawn. I don't agree with your underlying premise: that you decide who or who isn't a liberal. Especially since you seem to think that a person is a liberal if they are not a goldbug.

I don't see much point in having Departments of Education or Energy.

There is a definite useful purpose to having a Department of Homeland Security.

As far as the land that the Federal government owns in the West - the Federal government either purchased or conquered that land and it belongs to the Federal government (i.e. US citizens as a people, not the several states). I'm all for a rational plan of divestment, but the Federal government is under no obligation to divest it.