Posted on 12/18/2007 7:41:42 AM PST by mnehring
I guess hindsight is 20/20. It strikes me as being something akin to having the police say "We want to put web cams in your bedroom to keep the peeping toms away.", and people saying "That sounds like a good idea!".
If people are afraid of an immediate danger, they will often give up a freedom for security, only to find that freedom not returned to them after the danger has passed.
Clearly you are having a problem with the era we are dealing with.
I spoke of the Unions being influenced by the Communists in the 30's.
After 1933 the Communist Party (CP) made great strides by switching from activism in the unemployed sector to aggressive union building among those who did have jobs. There was a great upsurge in Communist participation and influence in labor unions—especially in the Pacific Northwest. This participation brought the Party new members and new credibility. In his book Labor and Communism: The Conflict That Shaped American Unions, historian Burt Cochran argues that the party gained influence and credibility by taking the lead in union-building struggles and doing the hard work of organizing and taking risks where others held back. Party members gained a reputation as fighters for the working class: http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/grijalva.htm
The Pendergast Machine was certainly corrupt but very unlikely to be communist.
Didn't say they were going to go Communist, only that the growth of Government power was due in large part to fear of the communism throughout the 30's and communism was popular during that period.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with the truth that paleoPaulie is an antiAmerican antiwar peace creep who deserves to be politically destroyed.
Only if you consider that we ought to be governed by the U.S. Constitution as being Anti-American.
1949 - Communism polarized the labor movement. Walter Reuther began to purge leftists from the UAW. The CIO expelled 9 communist-led unions.
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/soc/labor.html
I’m pretty sure that definition means “liberalism” in the Milton Friedman sense.
I still don't see it as a 'gaffe', he stated a truism, that tyranny will come to this nation disguised as something that it is not.
Every advance in Socialism in this nation has been advanced as doing some 'good' and is never said to be socialism, which most Americans hate.
And he always qualifies that with taking into consideration the recomendations of the military leadership and the safetly of our troops.
What Ron Paul doesn't want to do is remain in Iraq for 50 years like we have in Korea and in Europe!
Like the leftists (Pelosi, Reid, et al.) you are apparently heavily invested in losing this war. It can be lost by the election of paleopeacecreeps or the leftist variety. We have many good reasons to believe that it will be victory and that is why Al Zawahiri is threatening to behead Islamic militia leaders who have come over to our side and those who will do so. The momentum has shifted and you missed that.
Well, from what evidence I have seen we have won the war by essentially destroying Al Quada and thus, that is why Bush has started withdrawing U.S. combat troops and plans to withdraw more in Sept.
So, it would seem that you are not willing to accept victory and get out.
The pacifist wonderbabies fear nothing so much as they fear victory since that will encourage future necessary wars. Too bad. Left or pseudoright, they MUST have a defeat for the US. Meanwhile, the paleos pose for "constitutionalist" holy pictures bleating about "declarations of war" and paleoPaulie actually makes a fool of himself and his followers by hallucinating about letters of marque and reprisal. Avast, Matey! Get your blunderbuss! We are heading for Fallujah!!!
Actually, we have won in Iraq, so we are going to leave, get used to it.
Bush can do more. NO ONE would do less than the paleopeacecreep.
Bush, as President should be doing more, so your criticism should be directed at him for his weakness on the WOT, not the Paleos who are not in power.
And why hasn't Bush done more against the terrorists and actually waged the war that he claimed he was going to wage in 2001?
Because the Neocons do not want to upset anyone, so they would rather U.S. troops be used to create their NWO under the guise of fighting terrorism then actually to destroy it by crushing Iran.
Most of the peacecreeps were rejoicing over the "intelligence" that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 until they realized that (coincidentally, no doubt) we attacked Iraq in 2003 and Qaddaffi went bely up on HIS nuke program just about immediately. That all means that we had instant credibility by going to war for a change. War against Iraq was a threat to Iran and Libya too. AND Dubya was not addicted to diployak like his daddy. If Bush eventually pulls out of Iraq (which I doubt), it will be on OUR terms as we see fit not in the manner of fleeing in terror favored by paleocowards, John Murtha, Pelosi, Kerry, et al.
It was Irael that put a halt to the Iraqi nuke program, not the U.S. and we were critical of Israel for doing it.
As for Bush pulling out, he is pulling out, he has already started withdrawing combat troops, although we are planning to keep a large U.S. presence in the nation.
As for the Democrats, not all have been urging immediate withdrawal, Hillary has stated that we need to remain, so you are in good company.
We have not been attacked in the US since 9/11 and not because OBL chooses not to hit us here. Rather, he is all too busy defending over there as it should be. Some of us believe that, if someone's civilian families are going to be killed, it is best that it not be our families and best that it not be in our land. May not satisfy the spineless Kumbaya crowd. Too bad.
I have no problem with that, but if you are going to wage war on Islamic terrorism, wage war on it, don't play political games, hitting one nation but ignoring another, like Iran.
The WOT will continue. If you really insist, we can, as a nation, chicken out, get whacked again here and then the paleogutless crowd and the organized left will fully assume the reputation of their collective object of worship: Neville Chamberlain.
The WOT is a farce and is not being waged seriously.
What is now being done is simply nation building under the guise of the WOT.
So, it is the Neocons, who are in power, who are not fighting the WOT and yet you ignore their lies and undermining of U.S. sovereignty.
Are the U.S. borders protected?
Have we gotten a control on U.S. immigration, whose failure led to the terrorists of 9/11 being allowed to wander around the nation unhindered?
But Ron Paul is the bogyman!
Don't criticize those who are actually responsible for the failures of 9/11, don't criticize the Clinton Administration for not taking strong action against the terrorists when we were being attacked throughout the 90's.
Don't criticize the GOP for not making national security a major issue when they controlled Congress.
No, the leadership of both parties failed in doing their duty in protecting U.S. citizens, but it is Ron Paul who is the evil one!
Lavender Justin(e) Raimondo (and his antiwar.com) may be your foreign minister. He is not mine. Paleos will do NOTHING about Iran, NOTHING about Iraq, NOTHING about Afghanistan, nothing about terrorism. They will seek to hold hands with the terrorist, sell them whatever they want, sing Kumbaya and expect the lions to lie down with the lambs. A simpler solution is to leave the bad guys' remains flat, black and glowing in the dark. If the UN does not like that, we will see whether the paleos side with the US or with the UN and who the genuine nationalists are and who the globaloney artists are.
Ron Paul states that we ought to have a Declaration of war.
But that would mean defining victory and having a commitment to win for U.S. goal which the Neocons will not accept, it runs contrary to their global worldview.
Thus, the American military is be used not for the defense of America, but to spread democracy throughout the world.
PaleoPaulie won't do squat because the American people, whatever their faults, would not be caught dead (and many would be dead soon enough) voting for the feckless wimp paleoPaulie for POTUS. His GOP constituents may well choose Peden to restore TX-14 to America. UpChuck Hegel got the message and he is going home. Weepy Walter Jones (paleobimbo-NC) deserves a well-financed primary opponent in North Carolina. Then there might be one or two others left but hopefully not.
What is really 'wimpish' is passing on a unresolved war to an incoming President.
Bush had almost two terms to bring this WOT to a conclusion, but chose not to, dragging his feet because his goal was not the defeat of terrorism but the advancement of the Neocon worldview.
Only two other times in U.S. history has a President left office with combat troops still in the field, Korea and Vietnam, and never a Republican.
And since the Neocons control U.S. foreign policy we can expect more of the same from the next President, Democrat or Republican.
Except most of the Paulistinians seem to think that the Constitution does not protect life or authorize the commander-in-chief to protect the country. They also seem to overlook the reality that the Founding Fathers who went on to become presidents did not seem to have a problem with entering into armed conflict without congressional approval.
Ron Paul states that the Constitution does protect life, but that it should be done on the State level, where criminal laws are enforced.
As for warfare, Ron Paul accepts the view that military actions can be undertaken when immediately needed to protect U.S. lives and property.
That is not an excuse for Congress to abrogate its responsibility in declaring war when it is justified.
I think an attack on our cities would be considered justified.
Reagan rallied those who wanted to take their country back from the elites and globalists.
In his defense, this actually did happen in the Middle Ages. Christ was clear that not everyone who called him “Lord, Lord” was of Him.
How dare he criticize fascism in a time of war.
Yes, tyrants come to power by getting the people afraid of some great threat and convincing them that they need to entrust them with power to deal with this threat.
Amen... you can add "fiscal conservative" to that list. I've been shocked by the anti-christian bias here towards Huckabee.
“RON PAUL: Well, I haven’t thought about it completely, but you know, it reminds me of what Sinclair, uh, Lewis once said, he said ‘when Fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.’ I don’t know whether that’s a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross like he is the only Christian, or implying that subtly. So, uh, I don’t think I would ever use anything like that.”
That’s rich coming from the only candidate in this election that willingly accepts donations from the neo-nazis at Stromfront. Last I checked the Ron Paul for President banner is still up there and they have a link to contribute to his campaign. Aren’t they the ones who like to march around burning crosses while carrying flags?
I am so glad I am not a Libertarian anymore... I don’t know if I’ve necessarily changed that much over the last 6 or so years, or if they have just become more loony over time. This is really pushing it, IMHO. Paul is not pandering to any sort of “conservative” when he states crap like this... It’s taken straight out of the Anti-war, liberal playbook. I don’t necessarily agree with Huckabee’s playbook either — trying to capitalize on his faith to win votes... That bothers me almost as much as Ron Paul’s statements during this campaign.
I just want to say that I KNEW there would be more problems like this when the LP started working with the Green Party back around 2000/2001 — all for the sake of combining forces against the “big parties” — which is fine when you are working to end censorship and such in the media, but not when you start getting deluded as to matters of policy and such... At first I thought it was isolated, but I’ve seen the LP now in two states working closely with the Green Party and people within the party becoming more and more “liberal” since 9/11... It seems that certain factions within the party have truly taken over now, and it’s a real shame. I’m a Republican now, but a strong Libertarian party could’ve at least helped to educate people as to the Constitution and Federalism. Instead they’ve chosen to again be the “protest” vote against the “system” and “powers that be”. Not really a great angle if you want to attract anyone but angry, disenchanted, young people who have no real clue about the reality we face in our world today... How sad...
So, should other constitutional rights be determined at the state and not federal levels?
The constitutionality of state laws against murder is confirmed by federal law. The writing and enforcement of those laws is done at the state level. That’s the way it should be.
On this point I actually agree with what he is saying. It’s just like the murder laws we have on the books already — punishments decided at the state level. If abortion is murder (which I personally believe it is) then it should be treated just like any other case of murder against an adult should it not? We don’t need a special exception in the laws — we need to fix the unconstitutional decision forced by Roe v. Wade and THEN pass the laws in each of the states — which incidently will probably be a LOT easier than getting the Supreme Court to reverse the decision, IMO.
Roe v. Wade should have never even gone before the Supreme Court and the decision should never have been nationally binding in that way.
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.