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 ...
Yes, and Rothbard's views were based on the non-interventist views of the Founding Fathers.
He wants to remove our troops so each region can handle their own problems.
No one can threaten the United States and with our Navy and Air Force we can protect our vital interests anywhere in the world.
The United States is not an Empire and we cannot afford acting as one.
Amen to your post!
Oh, don't mind them. They're just being snippy because the original plans called for the newly unearthed docs to be given a grand, gala public unveiling on the Alex Jones radio show next week. ;)
Amen.
I didn’t say we have to, I just pointed out that we have an embassy in all of our ally nations. We are planning for free Iraq to be an ally...
I’m simply pointing out that there is no secret about this.
I am for fighting the terrorists wherever they are, but I am not for nation building, which is what we are now doing on Iraq.
Regions need to handle their own problems.
That was the essence of the Monore doctrine, that the Americas were our region and that the colonial powers were to stay out.
No facts in the column huh?
Former aide to Ron Paul and founder of Libertarian Republican Caucus says RP is a nut job. This wasn’t an assertion, it was fact, as quoted.
The column says RP can’t get above 5% support from Republicans. Again, a fact.
The column says Google is his top donor and that Google has a long history of supporting Democrats, also facts easy to confirm.
The column says that the computer tech community is at the core of the RP campaign, also easily proven to be fact.
The column says that RP supporters have spammed and jammed online polls, a fact all Freepers know to be true.
The column says that the RP campaign is promoting party-jumping to get anti-war leftists to vote for him in the RNC primary, since very few Republicans will. Another FACT proven with a trip to any or a number of RP campaign sites openly promoting just that.
No facts huh?
If you believe that, you are extremely foolish extreme.
Returning to the principles of non-interventionism is not a 'leftist' idea, it is an American idea.
It is not an issue of 'left' vs 'right' but American ideals vs the Warfare/Welfare ideals held by the leadership of both major parties.
Neither Party is against Big gov't, they just want to be the ones to control it.
The Ron Paul candidacy is an appeal to a coalition against that government Leviathan.
Thank you, Wallace T for the most insightful assessment of Ron Paul’s intellectual background and the source of his support among some libertarians.
I think it important that those who might support RP spend some time on Rockwell, Raimondo, and von Mises to get a grasp of the kind of world these guys envision as utopia and ask themselves if this is the kind of world in which they would like to live. RP is great on slogans but slogans don’t often obscure as much as they reveal.
Stripped of the sloganeering and rhetoric, what RP advocates is a return to the 19th Century.
Surrender?
Who is there left to defeat?
The myopic attitude of the Paulistinians that we can somehow encapsulate America is a bubble is truly frightening.
When the rest of the world is overtaken by totalitarian Chicoms, Russians and Islamofascists, there won't be much of America left to protect.
“There is Saudi Arabia — we were attacked by Saudis in 2001”
Not all were Saudi’s and those who were are Saudi exiles who had been thrown out of Saudi. They had attacked Saudi for heavens sake.
By this logic, we should declare war against America, because 14 of the 19 hijackers were actually LEGAL US residents.
“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.”
Isn’t the constitution great! On those freedoms and civil rights?
“I know of no consensus that invading Iraq was necessary to fighting Al Qaeda.”
Then you haven’t read any of the official threat assessment reports or international intelligence reports on the subject.
“I really don’t know why Bush made the decision to invade Iraq.”
Bush? Don’t you mean Bush and 85% of congress who voted to support use of force to depose Hussein? Invasion? Don’t you mean liberation?
All of the folks who voted in favor of this mission did so for the same reasons, our best intel and that of our allies agreed 95% that it had to be done to stop the possibility of (pay attention now) “raw” bio, chem or nuclear materials that could be weaponized and delivered via terror networks, making them WMD’s, from reaching our cities.
The enemy had no long range nukes on 9/11. They used commercial airliners as WMD’s.... Think conventional threats, and you will be on the wrong track in this war.
Use 1776 rules of engagement and you’ll lose this war.
Actually extreme, you need to do some homework.
The exact same groups who always support Democrats are supporting RP.
I asked you a question which you were either unable or unwilling to answer, so I simplified it by making it multiple choice, you are still either unable or unwilling to answer it. I don't need to back anything up, all I am doing is commenting on Ron Paul's stated positions.
Actually, you kid yourself with this interpretation of events and people opposed to your guy.
Most conservatives agree in general with many of RP’s domestic stances. There is NO old guard fighting RP on those issues.
And, there is NO such thing as “pro-war” Americans. There are only pro-national security Americans, most of them conservatives with personal experience in the real cost of freedom and peace.
It’s RP’s leftist talking points against the war on terror that divides him from most conservatives, nothing more.
What angers most conservatives is his campaign tactics and efforts to hijack the RNC nomination using leftist anti-war money and votes to win the Republican nomination.
Your imagination is not needed. We’re telling you what the problem with your candidate is. You’re just not listening.
I’ve restated this better a couple times alreay, it would be better stated that he would draw votes from other conservaives in the race, or cancel out conservative votes with leftist votes brought in from across the aisle.
But further, the war is not the only issue he has in common with leftists. His support for legalized drugs, comes to mind.
To the right of Ron Paul...
And these folks clearly oppose RP and support Fred Thompson, imagine that!
Maybe youth...?
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.