Posted on 09/16/2007 8:53:29 AM PDT by NapkinUser
I’ll give you a hing ____ __F! Paul threads should be banned.
Thank you for that quote in post #107.
Well, that’s easy for you to say, as you are an fan and another, Extremely Extreme Extremist like Paul.
Paul threads should be banned.
Then why in HELL is everybody so furiously bad-mouthing him? He is on record that he won't run on a third-party ticket so he can't pull a Perot on us. I know, we're so used to politicians lying to us that we automatically think he's lying too, but what if he isn't? What if he's just what he says he is? What if he were to be elected and managed even one tenth of what he wants? Isn't that what we want too?
On the other hand, we could run Fred McRomniani against Hillary. We know what to expect from the "first tier" candidates, more of the same ol' same ol'. Even if we do elect Fred or Rudy we know from past performance that they'll do whatever it takes to keep the Pubbies in office. I've voted the party line for over fifty years. No more! This time I'm voting for the man I feel is best for America. I may not agree with him on everything but I don't agree with the others on a whole slew of stuff.
That is your biggest error. Don't believe the polls on Iraq. The questions are worded to get the results they seek.
This is the question asked in the latest Fox News poll:
Based on General Petraeus' new report, do you think the United States should pull out all troops immediately, pull out all troops gradually over the next year, pull out after Iraqi troops are capable of taking over, or, send more troops?If that question is slanted "to get the results they seek", then it wasn't slanted toward the first two options.Pull Out Immediately - 22%
Pull Out Gradually - 42%
After Iraqis Capable - 24%
Send More Troops - 2%
Unsure - 10%
Thank you for your service and your excellent comments.
My support of Paul is due to his tireless commitment to limited government (federalism), low taxes, American sovereignty, border security and ending the drug war. Now I do have some reservations about his foreign policy, but to me Paul would still be better on foreign policy than all the Dem candidates and maybe even Rudy/Romney/Huckabee, because he'd fight a war without harassing law-abiding Americans with crap like the RealID Act and leaving the borders wide open.
It's a shame that the presidential candidate who adheres to the Constitution the most is trashed on the very website dedicated to defended it.
That's easy enough
It (honest investigation of 9/11 truth) will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in chargeBearing false witness is cool when it's you, huh? Especially when you have a good reason cuz then, well, it's righteous.
Looks that way.
Are you kidding me? Paul has always been a strong supporter of the military. He supported Reagan's SDI and military buildups and more benefits for military veterans. He supports border security and ending handouts to illegals so they'll go home.
I guarantee you if, God forbid, this nation is ever attacked directly again and Paul is President, he'd immediately drop a dime on their asses and let the survivors rebuild their own country. He wouldn't have a finger jammed in his crotch wondering whether to go to the UN or the "international community." That's what Bush should have done on 09/12/2001, Middle Eastern capitals should have been in smoking ruins.
Also, Henry Hyde. Rejecting Congressman Paul's proposal for a declaration of war, Hyde said this:
There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore.
Dont sugarcoat it Sonora!
Perhaps because Paul doesn't have time to determine the agendas of each and every single one of his supporters? How does Paul know who people are unless he personally interviews each of them.
Skinheads and Neo-Nazis probably voted for Reagan and Bush too. Does that mean Reagan and Bush supports or is in bed with them? Even the old ladies at the voting booths don't know who everyone really is. Give me a break. Your guilt-by-association s--t is getting annoying.
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
This aint a preventative war
That's a new one.
You expect me to play by the Queen of Marquesberry rules when you post drivel about my candidate?
Congratulations, your mother must be very proud.
Damn straight she is. I didn't get my ass kicked by her when I was a shorty and became a responsible adult for nothing.
I've always been a huge fan of Dr. Paul, thanks.
Paul threads should be banned.
Paul is a presidential candidate, so if he's in the news, it's going to get posted here one way or the other.
Look. Like it or not, we are there, and we have to finish it.
IMHO the spread of freedom is not a bad thing.
Yeah, I suppose that the folks in the ME used to be free before we got there, Free to fester and waste, free to piss and whine.
Lets offer the world some hope
Excellent quote, the longer version runs.
When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war... War settles nothingUsed a lot by the hard left.
It came up on this thread, Ike knew that war settles nothing from the Capital Times from Berkley midwest, the heart of progressivism.
One of the problems I had, as did a couple other freepers, is the attribution of the quote.
As in, it can't be found in primary sources.
I've been told on these threads that Freepers are a bunch of dumbass neocons, Ron Paul and his folk are the source of wisdom, never to be criticized. Thus I've come to realize that there is no one smarter than Ron Paul supporters.
I look forward to the specific source of the quote. Primary source, not blogs.
To give you a head start, if you find an antiwar site that provides a citation, they'll send you to the Ottawa Speech.
Well no, it's not there, but November, 1953, what preemptive war were we considering four months pre Dien Bien Phu?
As well as the primary source, context please.
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.