Where are all the Ron Paul people coming from?

The Oregon Poll ^ | 9-20-7

[Petronski]

Over the last two days The Oregon Poll was seen by almost 400 "unique visitors," most of them in support of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. The majority of these people came from these two links on the web.

ronpaulforums.com

stormfront.org

[dangus]

“Ron Paul, United States Presidential candidate, ran it in 9.7 seconds.””

I wonder how fast O.J. Simpson can run. He must’ve been very fast.

[traviskicks]

I don’t believe Ron Paul is anti-Semitic. Do you have any basis for making that claim?

The claim is made because Paul disaproves of the billions upon billions of aid will give to Israel. However, he would also cut out the billions upon billions given to arab countries like Egypt and Saudi. I think the Israeli's are more than capable of handling themselves and would perhaps even be better off without us. Any of his comments directed towards the Israeli lobby are just like his comments against any special interest group. It is like a liberal group saying Paul is 'against' the children for voting against children's health care and attacking the organizations that advocate for this sort of socialism. It is ridiculous.

[dragnet2]

dragnet2 is using diversionary tactics.

Haha. Too funny!

In #176 I posted this diversionary tactical question: Tell me, why does our current leadership, aid and abet, and actually encourage this massive violent invasion of our country?

Care to take a shot at this tricky, diversionary tactical question?

:o

[tacticalogic]

You seem to subscribe that because regulatory authority is illegitimate, then the forces of good also have lay down to the abject subjugation to the forces of evil within the regulatory at all times.

Why would I subscribe to that idea when we have the power to legitimize that authority? Congress assuming illigitimate regulatory authority is not of force of good.

[traviskicks]

well said

[tacticalogic]

In an analogy: Suppose I am a divorced parent. I might argue that under the law, my wife should not have been granted custody of my children. Fine. Does that mean that I also have to defend her against charges of neglect when the children have malnutrition, because the law states that she should not be the responsible person? Of course not! If the law were better applied, she wouldn’t have the responsibility, but as the law is applied, she has that responsibility, and I am obliged to do everything I can to make sure that the responsibility is fulfilled, even if the law says it’s not my responsibility.

That is a responsibility you have to your children. It is a valid analogy if you assume that the proper relationship between the federal government and the citizens is that the government treat them as children.

[dragnet2]

It's an old tactic, you cause the person to make several agreeing statements on simple items to a point where if you don't agree with their final conclusion you are in a corner and have to go back several levels in order to restate something. You've then lost credibility.

A hearty laugh and good humor in the morning does a soul wonders. Thanks for that mnehrling!

[MamaTexan]

The formal statement of the warrant is to authorize the agent to pass beyond the borders of the nation (”marque”, meaning frontier), and there to search, seize, or destroy assets or personnel of the hostile foreign party (”reprisal”), not necessarily a nation, to a degree and in a way that was proportional to the original offense. It is considered a retaliatory measure short of a full declaration of war, and by maintaining a rough proportionality, has been intended to justify the action to other nations, who might otherwise consider it an act of war or piracy.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal were issued to INDIVIDUALS who could show injury or loss because of the actions of a person from another nation.

-----

To somehow quibble that a war is not legal because Congress only issued a resolution of war, rather than a declaration of war is to say that the President is impelled to suspend civil liberties whenever we must act to defend ourselves from foreign misbehavior.

There is no 'quibble' about it. Authorizations and resolutions are nothing more than unconstitutional exercise of authority for the sole purpose of doing an end-run around the Constitution.

The Founders PURPOSELY made it difficult to declare war by giving that power to Congress, but easy to declare peace by giving the President the treaty-making authority.

The absolutely disgusting thing is that so many 'conservatives' applaud federal actions for the simple reason that they agree with it. They have no clue as to the Constitutionality of the action itself...nor do they appear to even care.

----

The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.
~George Washington

The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.
~James Madison

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
~Abraham Lincoln, Letter to William Herndon Feb. 15, 1848

[US at Risk]

The WOT issue made me question Paul’s sincerity on other issues. But yes, the WOT is the breaking issue. Even if you oppose it in theory, you don’t defund our troops who are being shot at. Paul has made that the central theme of his campaign, telling me that is the most important issue to him, as it is to me. The problem with this is we are on polar opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to this.

RP doesn't seem to be against the WOT, just the methods that are being employed. For example, he supported going into Afghanistan after OBL. He also wanted to put a price of $1 billion on OBL's head. To me, this is not isolationist. Here is RP's assessment of terror as a tactic, which I think is reasonable:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr071405.htm

The idea of a non-interventionist FP is anathema to many Republicans these days. It was to me, too, before I opened my mind to the possibilities. Ron Paul is a Big Stick diplomacy guy, reminding me a great deal of Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a peacemaker first and earned the US and the office of President great reputations in this regard.

The central theme of Paul's campaign is not defunding troops (nice hot button there), but dismantling extra-Constitutional powers of the federal government. I do not think for a minute that he would endanger our troops.

I probably agree with 75% of Paul’s positions, but the 25% disagreement is a deal breaker. Most of the other issues I mentioned are simply to point out how Paul says one thing but does another, like border security. He complains nothing is being done but when given the opportunity to do something about it, he voted against putting the Guard on the border because part of the bill also said it was to support stopping drug runners and he is against anything to do with the WOD

RP's apparent votes against border security make much more sense if one looks into his actual reasoning. Here's what he said about the Hunter amendment:

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2005
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other purposes:

Mr. PAUL . Mr. Chairman, I rise with serious concerns over this legislation, which although it does address some illegal immigration problems is woefully weak on real substance. I fear that should this bill become law as is, six months or even a year down the road we will see no substantial improvement on the critical issue of deporting illegal aliens and protecting our borders. Some measures in the bill sound good, but are in effect superfluous. Do we need new legislation requiring the Department of Homeland Security to achieve ``operational control of the borders''? Shouldn't the federal government already have ``operational control of the borders''?
Here is a road map for real immigration reform. First we need better enforcement of the laws we've got--which plainly call for illegal immigrants to be arrested and deported and for our borders to be secure. These things are already law, but the executive branch over the past decades has failed to enforce them. Congress can pass any law it wants, but unless federal agencies enforce those laws they are meaningless.
Second we need to eliminate the two main magnets attracting illegal immigrants to illegally enter the country, the welfare magnet and the citizenship magnet. Failure to address these in an immigration bill raises questions about achieving real results. That is why I introduced three amendments to this bill, in the hopes that we can finally do something about the problem of illegal immigration. I introduced an amendment to end so-called ``birth-right citizenship,'' whereby anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically an American citizen. I introduced an amendment to end the practice of providing U.S. Social Security payments to non-U.S. citizens. And finally I introduced an amendment to prohibit illegal aliens from receiving food stamps, student loans, or other federally-provided assistance. Unfortunately, none of my amendments were even allowed to reach the Floor for a vote.
There are some elements of this new bill to be applauded. Measures to require detention of and expedited removal of aliens, for example, are a good step. Also to be applauded is the requirement for an additional 250 inspectors at U.S. ports of entry each year from 2007 through 2010, although this is unfortunately subject to the availability of funds. But overall this bill is a weak substitute for real immigration and border reform. As the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) says, H.R. 4437 ``treats some of the symptoms, it does not, in fact, do enough to actually cure the illness.

______________________________________________

So, RP is hardly squishy on the border issue, but has a well-reasoned position that does not encompass passing a bunch of new law.

[Clint N. Suhks]

There is enough evidence to suggest that this is not a “moonbat” conspiracty theory.

Did you bump your head before you wrote that? The plan is only for it to go to Oklahoma. You Truthers are more proof FR should require an IQ test to join. And BTW, no, Bush did not blow up or WTC and shoot a missile at the Pentagon.

[traviskicks]

I understand Jim Robinson’s personal opinion, and I respect it; it is more than obvious he doesn’t support Ron Paul. :)

But I have a hard time believing he would mandate banning Ron Paul supporters, pulling all threads with news/opinion about Ron Paul, and discontinuing Ron Paul pinglists.

There is a fair amount of support for Paul here on FR, he was the third highest vote getter amongst the GOP pres candidates among FR members, second amongst the lurkers/general public. I have a libertarian ping list of 200+ freepers, many of them support Ron Paul. I’d even bet a majority of freepers have some level of respect for Ron Paul and his positions (Abolish the IRS, US out of UN etc..), even if they do not support Ron Paul; and I’d bet an even smaller minority support the above draconian measures.

I mean, let’s face it, despite the heated debates, or maybe even because of them, these RP threads are a lot of fun; they have the most replies and views of pretty much any subject on FreeRepublic, it seems. Plus the creative graphics... :)

Bottom line is I think these sorts of measures would hurt FreeRepublic and would be very dissapointing to those of us that have been here for years, contributing financially, and really support what Freerepublic does.

It is my sincere hope the above measures don’t come to pass.

[elhombrelibre]

What can we expect from people so unserious that they’re earnest for Ron Paul.

[VxH]

[Ron paul for his anti-semitism.]

Interesting. Is this anti-semitism documented?

[Revelation 911]

You are a liar and God hates liars. Fred Thompson belongs to the Church of Christ, and always has.

what a charming Christian - odd, I heard it reported the other day he switched denominations - rather than call me names - how about requesting a source.......

My advice is a nap, some coloring time and another try before suppy

I note that my original comments were incorrect .

some sources indicate he is now attending a presbyterian church.

We’re talking about the real world here.... not your own personal Biblical interpretations.

Israel is every part of Gods plan as the temporal world. My interps are non existent as the Old Testament is quite clear about Israel

FYI.....Im a pastor, and really consider your blatant accusation of an intentional lie indicative of an issue within your heart

[Revelation 911]

I believe you are mixing up Fred with McCain regarding the Baptist issue

yes - I now acknowledge that - thank you

[Revelation 911]

I can find nothing to support the above assertion. If you cannot supply documentation of this charge, I repectfully request that this post be removed.

take a deep breath sport

see 374 and 375

[ejonesie22]

It would be a very tough call. I am thankful I will not have to make it.

[ejonesie22]

Well to be honest it was easy to say.

It is not like I will ever need to make such a choice.

[jmeagan]

*****Did you bump your head before you wrote that? The plan is only for it to go to Oklahoma.****

There has been a lot of reporting about this on WND. Why don’t you go over there and read their archives on this issue? Unless, you think WND is making this stuff up out of thin air, it puts it beyond the “kook” range.

***You Truthers are more proof FR should require an IQ test to join. And BTW, no, Bush did not blow up or WTC and shoot a missile at the Pentagon.******

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it and be banished from FR. Your reading skills are certainly not up to snuff. In the 100’s of posts I have put on this site you will not find anything that gives the faintest indication that I support the truther movement.