Skip to comments.
Climb On Board The 'Ron Paul Revolution'
TheDay ^
| 9/16/2007
| Marc Guttman
Posted on 09/16/2007 8:53:29 AM PDT by NapkinUser
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 321-336 next last
To: Hydroshock
The fact that you are so against Ron Paul is a sign of his merit in my eyes.You go ahead and run with that. LOL
41
posted on
09/16/2007 9:17:32 AM PDT
by
Petronski
(Cleveland Indians: Pennant -9)
To: Dr. Frank fan
There is nothing particularly conservative about that stance, except in the most uncharitable definition of what it means to be "conservative" (i.e. cowardly, insular, lazy, sedentary...).No offense but there's nothing particularly conservative about carrying out Wilsonian nation building. Nothing to do with cowardly, lazy, or sedentary. But rather you declare war, you go to war, and you win the war only when necessary and not to 'stabilize' a region or remove a dictator that may or may not be supportive of actions against another nation not ours.
42
posted on
09/16/2007 9:17:37 AM PDT
by
billbears
(Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
To: Turbopilot; George W. Bush; MinnesotaLibertarian; traviskicks; Extremely Extreme Extremist; ...
43
posted on
09/16/2007 9:18:34 AM PDT
by
NapkinUser
(Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul in 2008!)
To: Hydroshock
They are conservatives tired of the war and tired of Washington. Tired of war? I didn't know we had a choice. I didn't know the fight against Islamic Jihad was something that we can just grow tired and quit. Yea but I understand those rationing lines we've experienced are a real pain.
I wouldn't want to share a foxhole with your friends.
To: billbears
But rather you declare war, you go to war, and you win the war only when necessaryAll of those criteria are currently being met. Next.
45
posted on
09/16/2007 9:19:21 AM PDT
by
Petronski
(Cleveland Indians: Pennant -9)
To: Hydroshock; Petronski
Ok, you are *for Paul because Petronski is against him. So are you *for paul because the anti-war libs are *for him? Do you usually follow the libs lead?
46
posted on
09/16/2007 9:19:34 AM PDT
by
Ditter
To: NapkinUser
Climb On Board The 'Ron Paul Revolution'Last known photo of the Ron Paul Revolution, overloaded with isolationist and defeatist ideology:
47
posted on
09/16/2007 9:19:48 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Chertoff needs to move out of DC, not move to Justice.)
To: NapkinUser
Military is for protection A defensive only military posture is a losing posture. The very reason our military has been so effective at protecting Americans is that they are forward deployed. Sitting on our shores waiting to be attacked is a losing strategy.
If this is an example of the depth of Ron Paul's intellect, then he has lost before he's even started.
To: guido911
No thanks.
No thanks to this: ?
"There is no surer way to have the money you have earned for yourself and your family be used to support that which you do not value and given to those who have not earned it than by allowing the government to tax your income."
49
posted on
09/16/2007 9:19:52 AM PDT
by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
To: Lancey Howard; Petronski; Allegra
Thomas Hart Benton: The Wreck of the Ole 97
50
posted on
09/16/2007 9:19:58 AM PDT
by
dighton
To: cardinal4
Give me a break, a third party candidate, even one with the right ideas will ensure a Hillary victory. Okay....that still doesn't really explain how you just know Ron Paul will be a third party candidate if he loses the republican primary.
51
posted on
09/16/2007 9:21:17 AM PDT
by
NapkinUser
(Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul in 2008!)
To: NapkinUser
If we truly want peace, to be safer, and to not drain the pockets of our children, we should redeploy our military personel back to our shores and waters and trade freely with all nations. To the Paulites: congratulations. Y'all have just out-Murtha'd Murtha. Hanoi Jack just wanted to deploy back to Korea.
Nothing to be proud of, but I doubt y'all will grasp that if you are outflanking Jack Murtha to the left, it's time to re-examine your premises.
52
posted on
09/16/2007 9:21:19 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Chertoff needs to move out of DC, not move to Justice.)
To: dighton
53
posted on
09/16/2007 9:21:34 AM PDT
by
Petronski
(Cleveland Indians: Pennant -9)
To: puroresu
54
posted on
09/16/2007 9:22:46 AM PDT
by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
To: Ditter
I like a lot about Paul, his stance on the war is the only major issue I do not like on him. Right now I am supporting Duncan Hunter, Paul is my #2, Fred #3.
55
posted on
09/16/2007 9:22:46 AM PDT
by
Hydroshock
("The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." - Sam Ervin)
To: Hydroshock
Hey, Hydro = in reading your posts, one wonders - is English your second language?
One simple truth - Paul is 72 now = which would put well into his 80’s if he got to a second term - He’s older than Reagan was, by a full term, when he was elected.
There’s a limit = I’m Paul’s age - I cannot imagine taking on the rigors of 8 years in the WH - and maintaining it.
56
posted on
09/16/2007 9:23:19 AM PDT
by
maine-iac7
(",,,but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." LINCOLN)
To: Hydroshock; Petronski; elhombrelibre; BlackElk
They are conservatives tired of the war and tired of Washington. Tired of the war.
Tired.
Of.
The
War
Interesting. Is the coverage of the war cutting into Star Trek reruns or something? Tired of hearing about all that nasty old terrorism?
Try living it.
The troops and the generals and all of those involved also get tired of the war. Very tired sometimes.
But none of us wants to quit just becuase we're tiiiired.
We can see the results...amazing results lately. Quitting, giving up is NOT an option.
57
posted on
09/16/2007 9:23:36 AM PDT
by
Allegra
(It's been very, very quiet here for a while...pray that I don't have to change this tagline.)
To: Petronski
Yikes! That is a spectacular train wreck! Is that the Paul Express?
58
posted on
09/16/2007 9:24:06 AM PDT
by
Ditter
To: been_lurking
A defensive only military posture is a losing posture. The very reason our military has been so effective at protecting Americans is that they are forward deployed. Sitting on our shores waiting to be attacked is a losing strategy.If Ron Paul has his way, our military will be presented with ample opportunities for defensive operations.
59
posted on
09/16/2007 9:24:31 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Chertoff needs to move out of DC, not move to Justice.)
To: maine-iac7
Theres a limit = Im Pauls age - I cannot imagine taking on the rigors of 8 years in the WH - and maintaining it.But you see, if we deploy our troops back to the US, there will be nothing for Ron Paul to do but veto bills other than those with earmarks for wild shrimp. Peace, love and kumbaya will reign around the planet. No Islamifascists will come here and attack us. No, siree.
60
posted on
09/16/2007 9:26:12 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Chertoff needs to move out of DC, not move to Justice.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 321-336 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson