Posted on 09/27/2007 11:13:55 AM PDT by jmeagan
CHICAGO - Late on a balmy Friday night in Wicker Park, a gentrifying neighborhood just northwest of the Loop, a small tribe of 20-somethings gathers outside a corner bar. Their leader, a petite, energetic 25-year-old named Meghann Walker, hands out leaflets to people heading inside.
"Do you guys know Ron Paul is going to be in town tomorrow?" Walker asks a short-haired young woman in jeans and flip-flops. "There'll be a lot of good people there, that's for sure."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
This will be my last Paulite thread. It’s been fun though.
Hopefully you guys will realize the foolishness of supporting Cut-and-Ron Paul. Anyway, see you at the primaries, when ron paul gets 3% nationally.
and one more thing:
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!!!!!!
I'll answer that! Ronald Reagan. Nancy Reagan. Casper Wienberger. George Schultz. Really, anyone that helped Reagan in the 80's in any way. Even my fellow FReepers that got involved in the campaigns in that era. All heroic.
You're right except that it had everything to do with it.
Ron Paul has stated that he wants very strong borders and he was appalled that our government had taken border guards off of our borders to send them to Iraq...."Although Congress funded an additional 2,000 border guards last year, the administration has announced that it will only ask for an additional 210 guards. Why are we not pursuing these avenues as a way of safeguarding our country? Why are we punishing Americans by taking away their freedoms instead of making life more difficult for those who would enter our country illegally"?Citing America's $1 trillion annual expenditure overseas, Paul called for America to spend that money in the United States. "Many of our border guards are sent to Iraq," he said. The problem of 9/11 was "Seoul Korea was protected better than Washington DC," he said.
"Tell me who in the last 150 years of American history are your heroes?" should take 10 seconds for a patriot of any stripe.
You "constitutionalists" seem to have as much problem with it as the hardcore Lefties. I wonder why? But - like the ACLU crowd - you only hate your Country because you so love the Constitution.
As for my answers?
Abraham Lincoln
Winston Churchill
Ronald Reagan
Margaret Thatcher
Pope John Paul the Great
He was a BAD, BAD man!
Shouldn’t take long for any real American!
This is the substance.
Votes against putting the Military on the border
2006: H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815
2004: Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200
2003: Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588
2002: H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546
2001: Traficant amendment to HR 2586
2000: Traficant amendment to H.R.4205
1999: Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401
It goes back to symbolism versus substance. It is like his symbolic vote against funding our troops in the middle of a war. The symbolism is he opposed the war. The substance is he voted against putting armor on our troops and giving them bullets while they were being shot at.
Shouldn’t take long for any real American!
So the immediate space surrounding a satellite belongs to the government of these United States. Great, send up military satellites (although one can and must question at what point the number of satellites crosses from defense to offense). Doesn't cover exploration nor does it cover promoting science.
If we were to apply this intent for authority over space as some claim to our own nation, the general government could claim ownership of all land in North Carolina and have the same authority as it does on a military base, which it doesn't.
Can you really not name any heroes that you are proud of and willing to defend.
It's odd that Reagan never got the "cut-and-run" complaint,although that's exactly what he did in Beirut in 1983.
Babe Ruth.Who are yours?
It strikes me that. more than anything else, you should understand about Dr. Paul is that he never votes for any legislation that is not EXPRESSLY authorized by a LITERAL reading of the Constitution. This is the Congressman's consistent, overriding philosophy about government. It is limited in scope and the rule of law originates from the Constitution. Therefore, if there is a bill that has nine points which you and I agree are necessary aspects of border security, but also infringes on the Constitution, Natural Rights, in a 10th, unrelated provision, the Congressman's philosophy requires him to oppose it no matter how much he agrees with the border security provisions. This is called principled governance and it is admirable. Therefore, where you point out that the Congressman voted against border security measures, it was not out of opposition to those measures, but rather opposition to other aspects of the bill that exceeded the federal government's authority under the Constitution. You may or may not agree with this philosophical principle, but that is how one rectifies Dr. Paul's stand on border security, which is as tough as Tancredo's or Hunter's, with his votes which reflect this larger principle. As president, Dr. Paul will have the bully pulpit from which to demand clean bills that address border security while avoiding the infringement on Constitutional liberties of Americans like you and I. Dr. Paul remains the strongest candidate with a strong border enforcement agenda.
As to the questions of militarization, Dr. Paul has stated publicly that he wants to withdraw the United States from the 130 countries to which we are currently deployed so that we can defend our borders effectively and without the massive drain on financial and human resources under which we currently suffer. He has been very critical of the Bush Administration for pulling border guards from the southern frontier in order to send them to Iraq to train Iraqi border security. I hope this helps clarify Dr. Paul's position on this very important issue.
I knew you couldn’t come up with a straight answer... just like a “Leftie”
It's also insane.
Could you explain to me how it makes a person a coward to not want to send young men and women off to a war to be possibly killed? What does that have to do with that individual’s courage or lack thereof?
In fact, you could say we are braver as we are willing to take the risk(s), to protect our liberties, that the pro war crowd could be correct and we could be killed in a terrorist attack in the US because we didn’t fight them “over there.”
As for my answers?
Abraham Lincoln Winston Churchill Ronald Reagan Margaret Thatcher Pope John Paul the Great
Nice!The problem is obvious.Abraham Lincoln???LOL.Ronald "cut-and-run" Reagan???The others are hardly part of American history.
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.