Posted on 11/11/2007 12:39:35 PM PST by PlainOleAmerican
I hate wasting this much press time on Ron Paul. But the Paul campaign is becoming a real threat to the Republican primary process and if allowed to continue, he will take votes away from the most conservative Republican candidates in the party, not the most liberal. This is bad for the party and the country.
(snip)
So, how Republican is Republican candidate Ron Paul?
If he’s funded largely by anti-war leftists, from Democrat stronghold districts and counting on Democrats, Libertarians and members of the Green Party to win the Republican nomination, not very…
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbull.com ...
Is it possible that Bush has changed his views on certain aspects of a possible situation since he took Office. I would expect Paul to do the same.
Exactly.
When I was in Boston a month ago a small platoon of fifteen Paul supporters paraded by and the ONLY thing they said (chanted) was, "Ron Paul. He's against the war."
Nuff' said.
Seriously???
Get real. If Reagan had been in office on 9/11, he would be leveling ME cities until there wasn;t another jihadist to be found in the region.
You can’t be serious...
bi-paulers always talk about Reagan’s victory in the cold war without firing a shot.... They forget two very important factors...
1) He broke them by outspending them in an arms race that in part, led us where we are today. This enemy isn’t in an arms race. They can turn our every day tool of commerce into weapons of mass destruction for free.
2) Assured mutual destruction is a strategy that works only when both parties have something they are trying to protect.
Our enemy has no nation, fights under no flag, with no rules of engagement, and nothing to protect or defend. In fact, we couldn’t nuke this enemy if we wanted to because it is spread throughout more than 60 countries, including our own.
This is exactly the naive ignorance of the average Ron Paul supporter than makes them and their candidate dangerous in power.
As long as our national borders remain wide open, I don’t think we are making a serious effort at the WOT. Building the largest US embassey in the entire world in Iraq tells me Bush has plans that he hasn’t yet revealed to us.
Liberty and Freedom are not suicidal tendencies!
But thinking you will have any freedom or liberty without strong foreign national security today, is suicide.
Then we will vote!
Who is “we”?
“Assured mutual destruction is a strategy that works only when both parties have something they are trying to protect.”
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the tenets of Islam. It would be a difficult proposition making pilgrimages to a radioactive hole in the ground. That’s why CAIR reacted with such outrage to Tom Tancredo’s suggestion that it might be a good idea to hold Mecca hostage to the peace and tranquility of the American homeland. I wish Tom was going to be our next President, but alas, he is not.
First, I appreciate your reasonable approach to this discussion. I’d like to respond to some of your assumptions.
“I am in favor of winning the war against Islamism.”
Me too, and the idea that we have not won it yet can not be a valid reason for not winning it now. If anything, you make a good case for stepping up the effort, not walking away from it.
“that moment has passed.”
As long as the enemy is not ready to quit, that moment has not passed.
“There have been several domestic plots over the past 4 years, but excellent police work by NYC and the FBI have caught the bad guys before they could do their dirty deeds. Well done!”
A truth that would NOT be true without the Patriot Act, a major target of the Paul (and left) campaign. We could have stopped 9/11 itself, had we had the Patriot Act. We knew the Atta cell in NYC a year earlier. Only the Patriot Act made it possible to know and act on that information. Paul’s wrong on this one too.
“If we, in some fantasy, elect Ron Paul President, he brings our troops home, and our country is then attacked again by Islamists, there would be total national unity”
No, what you would have is a national tragedy and a whole lot of “I told you so.”
“on a declaration of war and a devastating response.”
Wrong again. We are not at war with any nation now. We have not been at war with another nation since WWII. There is NO nation to declare war against. Our enemy operates in 60+ nations, most of them our allies, but under no flag. That’s why there is NO declaration of war.
“Even Ron Paul, after all, voted for the Afghan war resolution.”
Is there a “declaration of war” against Afghanistan that I don’t know about? Paul cast the same vote for Afghanistan that he now criticizes about Iraq, which he voted against. Paul fails to make any connection between the WOT and Iraq, but 95% of US and ally experts agreed on the connection. Most of them still agree today.
“Personally I like Tom Tancredo’s plan of holding Mecca and Medina hostage for our country’s peace and tranquility. The outrage from CAIR that greeted Tom’s idea was a sure indication he was on the right track. If you like, add Teheran to Tom’s list.”
I’m good with this, but by itself, it won’t be enough.
“But if we are still mucking around in the Middle East, and our country is attacked again, there will be no national unity on what to do; just endless recriminations.”
35 years later, people still disagree on Vietnam. So long as there is political exploitation of the war, there will be no national unity on the war.
The best thing for the war on terror is another attack on US soil, a really BIG one, level a few US cities maybe.
Is this what we want to help us understand that until the enemy is ready to quit, we can’t quit?
Your first point is certainly valid. Your second, a bit naive. We have maintained a presence in every nation we have ever liberated.... Iraq will be no different.
Apparently, you’re not aware that Mecca has been rebuilt before...
Paul (38%) Clinton (48%)
Paul (33%) Obama (50%)”
Yep, and these paultards all swear up and down that he’s the “only one” who can beat hillary.
I do not share your feeling that we must protect every person who has been freed by our troops. If we freed them from a dictator then it is now time for them to maintain their own freedom. They can quit sucking on our tit and stand on their own two feet.
ROFL! There is no facts in this drivel of an article. I read it at work today and knew some FReeper would jerk his/her knee posting this garbage and all the bashers would crawl out of their rocks to post their ad-hominems and jpegs.
Meanwhile, Paul just crossed over $8 million in fundraising. He's already two-thirds of his 4Q goal and November ain't even half over yet. BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!
Every day, in every way, the Ron Paul brain trust grows steadily more and more formidable.
Two things here. (1) He's not running as a third party or independent candidate. Said so millions of times already, please stop repeating this garbage (2) If he does run as a third-party candidate and drain votes away from Democrats, then what's your beef?
As it is, he is looking to hijack the RNC nomination using leftist money and leftist votes to over-ride the legitimate Republican primary vote. At worst, he could be nominated atop the RNC ticket by members of the DNC. (Not likely)
Two things again here. (1) You and the author of this pile of rubbish have no proof that ALL of the individuals who have donated to Dr. Paul are "leftists." Paul's donations came from everbody across the country, all across the political spectrum (2) Why would leftists support someone who is completely at odds with their views, including the war? Paul may oppose Iraq but he's not completely anti-war. Leftists support envirowackoism and humanitarian missions for our troops. Paul doesn't. So explain to me, what exactly would leftists accomplish by supporting someone in the GOP primaries who would damage Hillary the most because he would unite all of the conservative & libertarian factions, including getting new voters to vote for him? Your logic is flawed to the point of outright stupidity.
But at best, he can drain off votes from more conservative RNC candidates leaving Rudy atop the nomination. (possible)
Now earlier you stated that he would drain away votes from the Democrats in the general election. So why would conservatives support him in the primaries then? If leftists are supposedly supporting Paul in the primaries, then he'll never get those conservative votes anyway.
No matter how you cut it, it’s dangerous to conservatives. What Republican would support such a thing?
Dangerous to conservatives, how? Do you realize that the GOP is one step away from joining the Free Soil and the Know-Nothing parties into irrelevancy, thanks to their high spending, nanny-statism, and not fighting this war decisively enough? I seriously can't believe that FReepers, who are legendary at sniffing out BS, have no problem in ripping a page from the liberal handbook when Dr. Paul is the topic.
Dude, those polls are BUNK. They are excluding Paul's name, and they are calling the same (dwindling) GOP registered voters who voted for Bush in 2004. Almost all of Paul's support is from newcomers and independents, in addition to conservatives angry at the GOP.
He’s meaningless.
He's won or placed higher than 3rd in almost all GOP straw polls, polls that can't be "spammed" by the way, people have to get off their ass and pay to vote. Look at Dr. Paul's YouTube videos, they are always in the hundreds of thousands of views. I saw a YouTube clip of Fred Thompson which didn't even have a 100 views.
He has a lot of kooks who spam and send him money but when it comes to actual national numbers he loses to a joke campaign by a liberal entertainer.
Are you seriously going to deride those who normally aren't part of the political process as a bunch of kooks? So when FR used to criticize the "sheeple" for not voting back in the days, now they're criticizing them for participating just because they're not supporting their favorite candidate. $4.3 million raised on 11/05, GOP online fundraising record, and another money-bomb on 12/16, Boston Tea Party.
“Building the largest US embassey in the entire world in Iraq tells me Bush has plans that he hasn’t yet revealed to us.”
Uh huh.
Ever think that that embassy complex is that large so that the people stationed there don’t have to venture out and be shot at, car bombed or kidnapped and beheaded?
It’s supposed to be a self contained community with it’s own stores, recreation facilities, a medical station, a shooting range for the Marines that will be stationed there as well as housing for the diplomatic personnel and their families.
Wagglebee, he's not running as a third-party candidate. Please don't lower yourself and believe in this propaganda. You're better than that.
“There is NO nation to declare war against.”
There is Saudi Arabia — we were attacked by Saudis in 2001; and the Saudis are still sending forth their Wahabbi-Islamo-Nazi imams who are spreading their message of hatred for all unbelievers. They are here in America right now, spreading their message of hate.
I believe that the Saudis understand that they are going to be targeted, and that’s why they are trying to fashion a solution for the Israel/Palestine dispute, before it ends in nuclear war.
We cannot prosecute this war any further now, because President Bush has totally obscured who the real enemy is. He receives CAIR at the White House, and his family does business with the Saudis.
I know of no consensus that invading Iraq was necessary to fighting Al Qaeda. I really don’t know why Bush made the decision to invade Iraq. Perhaps it was the supposed WMDs; perhaps partially due to the attempt on his father’s life; perhaps his neo-Wilsonian desire to spread democracy across the globe. Whatever his probably well-intentioned reasons, the main effects of the Iraq invasion have been to greatly weaken the Republican Party, and greatly raise the influence of Iran. Not good at all!
On the Patriot act, I would say that you have a strong argument. There must be some reason we have stayed relatively safe with our nation’s borders wide open, and the Patriot act may well have provided the edge our law enforcement forces needed.
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.