Posted on 10/14/2007 4:35:45 AM PDT by Calpernia
Call me when the Ronster gets out of single digits in any reputable poll of people capable of casting a legal vote.
“there’s absolutely no shame in supporting a candidate on fire for liberty.”
Ron Paul gets a high rating from the ACLU, who is constantly trying to take away our religious liberties.
Ron Paul is a nice man personally, but he has that confused libertarian definition of liberty.
“Duncan Hunter missed 2nd place by only TWO votes! That right there is HUGE NEWS!!!!”
And he doesn’t have the big bucks, but still does very well in getting his message out.
This group MUST be libertarian, because Ron Paul didn’t even come in first, or second, in his own state of Texas, and Paul lost by MORE THAN 2 to 1:
“Duncan Hunter doubled the totals of the next-closest candidate, garnering 534 of approximately 1,400 votes cast. Fred Thompson came in second with 266 votes, and Paul rounded out the top three with 217 votes.
Here are all the results:
Duncan Hunter: 534
Fred Thompson: 266
Ron Paul: 217
Mike Huckabee: 83
Rudy Giuliani: 78
Mitt Romney: 61
Ray McKinney: 28
John Cox: 10
John McCain: 8
Sam Brownback: 6
Tom Tancredo: 6
Hugh Cort: 3”
Not at all. I'm just an ordinary citizen concerned about the massive declines in liberty I see all around me. Talk to anyone these days about the role government plays in their lives, and you'll hear grumbles about the inflexibility and unaccountability of government in our country.
Ron Paul talks about the root causes of these problems. He talks about real ways of resolving them. The other candidates aren't willing to touch the Federal Reserve and fiat currency, which is at the center of these problems.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.Looking around me, that's exactly what I see happening. Capitalism and the freedom of the individual is at the core of our Constitution. Surrendering control of our economy to private banks through the Federal Reserve consortium reversed that in so many ways. Our freedoms have been in direct decline ever since 1913.
Just because this or that group appears to support a candidate does not mean that the candidate subscribes to its particular views. That's a fallacy of logic. If you can find speeches or material in which Ron Paul has agreed with the multiculturalist positions of the ACLU, then that would be different.
Knowing a little about Ron Paul, I think it's safe to say that you won't find a clear agreement between Ron Paul and the "leveling" views of the ACLU. And on issues ranging from gun control to public spending, Ron Paul is diametrically opposed to their positions.
If you dig into Ron Paul's motivations for taking specific positions on issues that diverge from your own personal beliefs, it is usually his view that the federal government does not have a constitutional role to play in enforcing those values. This is critical. Just because we want something to be done in society does not mean that the federal government is the constitutional tool for enforcing it. If our side does not uphold the constitution when attempting to improve society, restraining our urge to bring to force particular aspects of government that are disallowed constitutionally, then we become like the socialist enemies of freedom in adopting their own unprincipled means to an end.
Thank you very much. I was just curious is all.
“If you dig into Ron Paul’s motivations for taking specific positions on issues ..”
I am not interested in Ron Paul’s confused motivations; I am interested in results.
He doesn’t even understand Jihad, and he blames America that we have been attacked, even though Jihad has been in existence for centuries before the U.S. was even born.
Ron Paul voted to allow groups like Planned Parenthood to take minors across state lines for abortions without their parents’ knowledge.
No, I am not interested in Paul’s confused motivations; I am interested in results.
There are reasons why Ron Paul received a 66% or so rating with the aclu, and Duncan Hunter received only 4%.
ACLU, trying to take away our religious and other liberties, one liberty at a time.
Ron Paul has a lot of support in these polls.
It just isn’t from conservatives or Republicans.
Perhaps RonPaul and AlGore could team up and run as a third party.
Yes, he talks about blowback. It's a fact that bin Laden resented American involvement in Saudi Arabia. Did you know that in 1979 zealots took over the Grand Mosque with the Kabah and our CIA directed the plan to retake it and free the hostages? In exchange for a fatwa against the zealot by the national clerics, the Saudis agreed to fund international Islamisim. A RAND corporation researcher has pointed out that since then, the Saudis have outspent the former Soviet Union year over year on anti-American Islamic mosque building, madrassa building, and prostletyzing.
Blowback is a fact. I say that what we did, for the most part, during the Cold War, was necessary. Now we have an opportunity to change directions. We do not need to keep the same level of military involvement in the world. We simply do not understand the consequences. Consider our support of moslems against the serbs in Kosovo, and moslems against the Russians in Croatia, and so forth. We are making one mistake after another, and you can look straight at the State Department for these twisted, erroneous policies.
Ron Paul is seriously talking about changing all of that.
Ron Paul voted to allow groups like Planned Parenthood to take minors across state lines for abortions without their parents’ knowledge.
Or did he vote against a package that had other unconstitutional issues? That's the problem with looking at his voting record. He may appear not to support your favorite issue, but the larger piece of legislation he refused to support may have been flawed in many other ways.
Ron Paul has an excellent pro-life record, by any standards. I would rank him well ahead of any of the 'leading' GOP presidential candidates in that respect. He did not have a conversion on the way to Des Moines like the others.
Ron Paul is a staunch opponent of international environmental treaties. He would do much better at fighting Al Gore's fanaticism than any of the current GOP front-runners.
Chechnya.
Once the real voting begins, his internet bubble will burst.
He is definitely being portrayed as a pacifist by the Establishment. But he talks about having war declared and then won. That's not how a pacifist talks. He recently mentioned using our weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent against attack. Again, this is not pacifist language.
His views seem extremist in comparison to the present administration's. But historically speaking we did used to wait to fight wars until we were attacked. Terrorism has confused us, briefly. I think Ron Paul is a voice of reason suggesting that actually terrorism calls for very precise responses rather than nation-building. His letters of marque talk is excellent, for example.
I think it's possible that the real bubble is in the Establishment manipulation of polls and opinions. People may come to understand that from amnesty to border security to economic policy, and even on the subject of war, none of the other candidates are about real change. That will enhance Ron Paul's support, not detract from it.
No. I think the word you're looking for is isolationist.
But historically speaking we did used to wait to fight wars until we were attacked.
We were attacked. Repeatedly. Bin Laden was embolden by the veery fact that he attacked us and we did nothing in response. I guess if you think 9/11 was an inside job, then we weren't attacked.
Terrorism has confused us, briefly.
HUH? Terrorism has been going on for decades. We're just starting to fight back, at last.
People may come to understand that from amnesty to border security to economic policy, and even on the subject of war, none of the other candidates are about real change.
Duncan Hunter is all about real change, if you care to check him out.
I think Ron Paul is a voice of reason ...
As long as RonPaul refuses to refute the 9/11 truthers and the blame America first crowd, there is little chance that he will be considered the "voice of reason".
That's just an inappropriate label. We can engage with the world without the massive, Cold War presence we had through the 1990s.
HUH? Terrorism has been going on for decades. We're just starting to fight back, at last.
The attacks of 9/11 did confuse us. They confused us very badly. I do not see our current 'war' (undeclared as it is) as being effective. Where is bin Laden? Why is Iran emboldened rather than restrained? Why is Pakistan able to harbor the Taliban? Why is Saudi Arabia unscathed when most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Why has our State Department invited upwards of around 100,000 muslims into the United States since 9/11, per year? Why are our borders insecure, still? Why are we rushing to undermine the bill of rights when it is mostly an immigration problem that threatens us? Yes, we are very confused.
Duncan Hunter is all about real change, if you care to check him out.
I like many things about Duncan Hunter, especially his comments about border security, trade with China, and patriotism. I highly respect him. I simply believe that he is naive. He does not address the Federal Reserve component of the domestic tyranny we face. He is in favor of massive increases in federal powers that are grossly unconstitutional. As I said, I respect his service and the service of his family greatly, but he is not the candidate talking about real freedom.
As long as RonPaul refuses to refute the 9/11 truthers and the blame America first crowd, there is little chance that he will be considered the "voice of reason".
He sticks to the facts, unlike them. That's refutation enough. And he is historically correct when he discusses blowback. It cannot be ignored when discussing terrorism. Fight it we must, but nation-building is abhorrent to me and all Ron Paul supports.
Closer than pacifist, IMO.
The attacks of 9/11 did confuse us. They confused us very badly. I do not see our current 'war' (undeclared as it is) as being effective.
I disagree. In a world with billions of Muslims in countries that control a large amount of oil, our only sensible attack is a slow,incremental approach, so as not to unite them against us.
Where is bin Laden?
Dead.
Why is Iran emboldened rather than restrained?
Perhaps they see what Bush is doing, and with the encouragement and support of Putin,they are sabre rattling. And, to be sure, we have allowed them to act boldly, much as Saddam did. A lot of good that did him.
Why is Pakistan able to harbor the Taliban?
We have to fight each Muslim threat one at a time.To take them all on at once is foolish and most likely will lead to more American casualties.
Why is Saudi Arabia unscathed when most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Why has our State Department invited upwards of around 100,000 muslims into the United States since 9/11, per year?
Those are puzzling. I also object to our handling of this situation. I believe Duncan Hunter would handle the situation much better than Bush has.
Why are our borders insecure, still? Why are we rushing to undermine the bill of rights when it is mostly an immigration problem that threatens us?
AS with the previous statement, I'd prefer it if a 'President Hunter' would be empowered to deal with this.
What you see as confused, I see as a failure of the current leadership, both in the Congress, the State Department and the White House.
I do not see a RonPaul Presidency making things better.
This couldn't have come at a worse time, and Hunter has his name on much of the worst of the legislation enacted during the darkest months of the chaos.
I like him better than most of the others. At least
Care to specify?
All the while the real threat is from illegal immigrants and extremist Islamic immigrants, yet little is being done about those things, seriously. (I'll grant that Duncan Hunter has tried.)
As I have said, I do not think Duncan Hunter means badly with his coauthorship of these unconstitutional bills, but he is naive for having supported them.
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.