Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous

NewsBull ^ | November 11, 2007 | JB Williams

[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…

[listenhillary]

HON. DR. RON PAUL: It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight.

Better with the Democrats in charge of oversight? He should be hitting up the DNC for money while he is at it.

How could this statement come out of the mouth of a “Republican” presidential candidate?

[penowa]

And you think that Soros is not in bed with “Bush and the Washington GOP establishment?” And don’t leave the DNC establishment out of the equation because without Rendell’s assistance, Toomey would have won the primary. BOTH of them pulled out all the stops to re-elect Specter and they are going full speed ahead to get Hillary elected President.

[lormand]

"I don't travel to many web forums, FR being the only purely political one, but you and Petronski, Kent and a few others would be banned on every other forum I frequent for rampant repeated trolling and TOS violations."

If just a fraction of what you said was true, then why don't you hit the abuse button? If you question the operations of this forum, take it up with the admins and others. It seems that you don't like they way they run things here, but discontent is a common thread among Paul fans.

"There is no credible defense for some of the posts you have made in the last few months. Further, no one here much cares to hear your defense."

Please don't confuse this site with other ones you go to. This is Freerepublic. We support the troops and their mission here. Messages and messengers counter to this mission will get appropriate treatment here.

In the meantime, keep your flame suit on, you will need it.

[Petronski]

Too gutless to ping those you’re slandering, eh?

That just figures. And you’re lecturing us about TOS violations?

[lormand]

"And you’re lecturing us about TOS violations?"

Yes, and we are getting lectured by Paultards on how to aviod "spam" too.

You can't get any more crazy than this, but I guess trying to think in terms of parodies of them may reveal what may come next.

[Allegra]

I thought you were done with this thread.

Where's all your tough talk now?

[William Terrell]

We appear to be safer, now. There are Islamic training camps, we know about in several states. It's just a matter of time, in my opinion. And if another attack doesn't happen with open borders and tolerance of these compounds and enclaves, I'll be willing to question the danger to begin with.

As I mentioned, I not sure that the occupation of Iraq is about the war on terror at all.

Well, just fight in another country and leave our homes wide open. Yes, that makes sense, especially when the action was generated by the very attack on our soil to begin with.

To compare America or Bush to PolPot or Stalin is insane and that’s where the exchange ends.

You don't seem to get what I was saying. Let me try again.

Any miserable, oppressed country and the people thereof want to protect themselves and their country, especially the leadership wants to hold it together. It's not the protection that is the concern, that goes without saying, but the kind of country you're protecting.

I'm saying that if you chose a candidate on his dedication to "national security" and ignore the damage he will do to society and culture, you may not have the country you think you have to protect.

In my opinion, if any of the "front runners" are elected on "national security", they will just follow the socialist status quo right to a country neither you nor I will want to live in. It has been going apace, driven by both democrats and republicans, by the choices given to us by the entrenched parties.

Paul will never win the nomination because he will not play ball by the designated playbook.

[William Terrell]

Believe it or not, there are some legitimate constitutional protections democrats are more interested in than republicans. Not many, but some.

I do not vote party. I vote candidate. To be an effective citizen of America, you have to think for yourself. Most party partisans do not, in my experience.

[listenhillary]

I hope you get better...

[michigander]

Which do you see as the greater threat:

With no specific context given to define "threat" and considering the general definition...

Threat: an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage

B

[drpix]

"What makes me laugh about you people is that all of you act as if Ron Paul sitting in the White House will have the powers of a king."

An obvious misunderstanding of an earlier graphic. What I fear is NOT that he'd have all the powers of a "king", but all the power of a "court jester"... and this country cannot afford that.

[darkwing104]

Good one...

[lormand]

Nice!

[B4Ranch]

Check your FR mail

[drpix]

CHeck your!

[fortheDeclaration]

[“Returning to the principles of non-interventionism is not a ‘leftist’ idea, it is an American idea.”]

No, actually, the left has been demanding this policy for a very long time. In addition to RP’s talking points being identical to Democrats, read here www.CPUSA.org and here www.SPUSA.org for where this notion originated. It’s anything but “American.”

Again, just because the Left has been advocating it doesn't make it wrong.

The American Founders also advocated non-intervention in others nations affairs and warned other nations about interfering with ours in this hemisphere.

It’s nothing more than a naive isolationist stance.

Nothing 'naive' about it.

We see what is going on in Pakistan.

We cannot control the internal affairs of other nations and put ourselves on the wrong side when we try to.

[ “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.” ]

Don’t confuse the issues. You’ll get almost all Republican voters to side with you against the nanny state. But what you call “warfare”, we call “national security,” which the founders made the highest priority of every elected office.

Not if the 'warfare' is an end in itself.

The goal is national security and our national security is not increased when we make more enemies then fewer.

Lincoln said that he 'destroyed his enemies by making them his friends'

[ “Neither Party is against Big gov’t, they just want to be the ones to control it.” ]

Not true... Many RINO’s are for big government, but this only accounts for a minor wing of the RNC, just like the Libertarian wing. Most conservative are very much against the nanny state. But politicians have to find ways to get elected at a time when too many Americans are demanding more and more social programs. That’s a reality every elected official must contend with. Ron Paul has been in Washington for some 30 years and not manage to stop or reverse any of it. How’s he get to claim hi ground here?

The Republican leadership is mostly RINO and you can tell that from who the top candidates are.

The Republicans gave the GOP leadership in 1994 and what did they do with it-same increases in the size of Government.

As for Ron Paul, he is just a Congressman and has very little individual power.

Moreover, he has been shunned by the GOP elite because he refuses to kow-tow to them and has been denied leadership positions even though he had seniority.

[ “The Ron Paul candidacy is an appeal to a coalition against that government Leviathan.” ]

NO - RP’s campaign is based entirely on the anti-war movement. If you support strong national security, including the right to “prevent” attacks by way of “pre-empting” threats, then you are NOT for Ron Paul. It’s that simple!

I support a strong national security, but that also means a wise foreign policy, that recognizes U.S.limitations.

The Ron Paul candidacy is against all facets of the Government Leviathan, and he has stated that he will move to end Social Security by allowing young people to begin to opt out of it.

He would pay for the transition with the money saved from U.S. involvement overseas that does nothing to help U.S. security.

Ending Social Security would be a devastating blow to the fascist New Deal policies we have lived under.

Now, I would hope that these discussions on Ron Paul would get beyond the name calling and guilt by association attacks and deal with what he is actually saying, that the U.S. cannot maintain this interventionist foreign policy, it is making us weaker, not stronger.

[B4Ranch]

>Paul will never win the nomination because he will not play ball by the designated playbook.<

Talk about logic. There it is!

Paul doesn’t want the New World Order, nor does he want us living in a North American Community under the UN Charter. He’s the one man who in my opinion believes more fully than most Americans do in the basic documents that founded our Republic. That is what is scaring the britches off the free traders, America once again becoming a sovereign republic with most of the current treaties tossed in the trash can.

[fortheDeclaration]

[“but I am not for nation building, which is what we are now doing on Iraq.” ]

There’s our difference in a nutshell, one simle phrase. You think we are nation building in Iraq. I don’t...

And what do you regard as 'nation building'?

We are rebuilding their interstructure and are involved in their political system.

I remember the debates and when asked about Iraq, and Huckabee saying that since 'we broke it, we need to fix it'.

Well, we liberated the people, we don't owe them anything else but to let them get their own nation in order.

[B4Ranch]

I don’t have the url to that article. By the way, you and I are done debating about Ron Paul.

[lormand]

..." that the U.S. cannot maintain this interventionist foreign policy, it is making us weaker, not stronger."

That is wishful thinking for those invested in defeat. It has no basis in reality however.