Posted on 06/19/2009 10:24:56 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
*Ron Paul is consistent in his beliefs and his political ideology which makes him one of the few honest members of government.*
Hitler & Stalin, were consistent also.
L Ron Paul is a disgusting Fascist.
Ron Paul opposes official government condemnations. That doesn’t mean that he hasn’t expressed personal opinions. He’s vote against a resolution endorsing apple pie but that wouldn’t mean that he thought apple pie is a bad thing. If you can provide an example in which he voted for a resolution to condemn Israel, you’d have a point...but I don’t think you can.
No, he isn’t. He has a clearly articulated set of principles and he walks his talk - and takes the heat for it.
Let’s put this to the test: all these 405 dipsticks voting for this resolution? Are they going to vote to involve the US in this crap in Iran?
No.
But boy oh boy, they want to be seen as pandering to the ‘correct’ side of the argument.
Paul is the only guy who had the guts to see this for what it was: cheap talk for PR purposes.
Agreed, but at least you know where he stands, on the looney side of the force. I would rather take an enemy you know rather than a RINO who would stab you in the back to feel popular with the MSM.
No he does't. He claimed America is a participant in Israel's invasion of Gaza and is antagonizing the Muslim/Arab world by not condemning Israel. How are you trying to spin his words, that he was claiming the U.S. should 'unofficially' condemn Israel's actions? Ron Paul is a hypocrite.
I'm sure it is the same exact reasoning he has had and has publicly stated since returning to Congress on every vote like this since January 1997?
Paul doesn't vote for any meaningless, worthless grandstanding House resolutions that deal with foreign nations. Doesn't matter what country it involves or if the resolution is praising or condemning, he votes against them all.
Let me repeat again. There is a difference between expressing a personal opinion (Paul has done so on many isuses including Iran) and making official policy via a congressional resolution. Again, do you have any evidence that Paul voted for a resolution condemning Israel? I know you don’t like him but facts are stubburn things.
We aren't talking about sending in troops, we just want our president to at least make an effort to appear that he takes the side of the oppressed rather then the oppressors in Iran.
What in the hell is wrong with that?
There are to many idiots on FR who would rather have Marxist Obama than a 85% Conservative Republican.
This rigid deranged thinking is destroying America.
Huh? How so? From whom?
Yes, IMHO, it would be. It might have taken a bit longer, and devolved more into unconventional warfare, but the ultimate result would have been the same. Let me ask you a question: do you think that France was wise to extend this aid? Keep in mind that many would argue that this aid bankrupted France and paved the way for the terror...which ultimately was a model for the likes of Lenin.
So in other words, Rep. Paul engages in meaningless, worthless grandstanding concerning House resolutions that deal with foreign nations. I suppose the "aiding and abetting" aspect of it is just a bonus? Does he expect Ahmadinejab to send him some flowers, or something?
What exactly did this resolution today accomplish?
It tells the world that we Americans side with the good guys. And you have a problem with that?
What “grandstanding?” Paul voted against the resoluton. The people who are doing the “grandstanding” are his detractors who are calling attention to it. What should have Paul done instead? Gone fishing?
For starters, it made Rep. Paul look like a blithering idiot.
The “Marxist Obama” supported this resolution.
Your argument is contradicted by Ron Paul's own words. He's condemning the U.S. for not condemning Israel. My link in post 139 proves this.
Again, do you have any evidence that Paul voted for a resolution condemning Israel?
What resolution? The U.S. doesn't make resolutions condemning Israel. If no resolution exists, he can't very well vote for or against it. You're not very good at constructing straw men. My argument is that Ron Paul is a hypocrite. On one hand, he opposes America condeming Iran, but on the other hand, he criticizes America for not condemning Israel.
but facts are stubburn things.
I've already proven my claims to be factual. He is clearly condemning the U.S. for not condemning Israel's invasion of Gaza, which I sourced in post 139. You haven't given me anything that disproves this.
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.