Code Pink style anti military diatribes are Ron Paul's legacy from the early 1990s. If anyone chooses to support him, that goes with him and they are supporting that as well.
Semper Fidelis
Posted on 05/10/2010 8:11:01 PM PDT by NY Hockey Mom
Perhaps the Republicans could have talked to the Tea Partiers ahead of time, read the platform and come up with some sort of compromise. But they didn’t. Instead, the delegates adopted a platform written by folks who, to put it bluntly, aren’t experts in politics. I’m not knocking the Tea Partiers in Maine. I’m knocking the Republican Party for failing to work with them and adopting a platform that would be palatable to both the Tea Party movement and the general public.
(Excerpt) Read more at lonelyconservative.com ...
Thanks! Maybe I put in the wrong excerpt. I didn’t take it as an attack on the TP but more the way Americans have been dumbed down by the media,etc. I live in NY, and trust me, a lot of people do not understand conservative principles. Most are clueless about what’s going on in the world because they get their news from the MSN homepage.
From another thread:
The document calls for the elimination of (1) the Department of Education and (2) the Federal Reserve, demands (3) an investigation of “collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth,” suggests (4) the adoption of “Austrian Economics,” declares that (5) “‘Freedom of Religion’ does not mean ‘freedom from religion’”..., insists that (6) “healthcare is not a right,” calls for the abrogation of (7) the “UN Treaty on Rights of the Child” and the (8) “Law Of The Sea Treaty” and declares that we must resist (9) “efforts to create a one world government.”
I score it seven “yes” and two “maybe”. Not bad.
the delegates adopted a platform written by folks who, to put it bluntly, aren’t experts in politics....
Good!!!! All of those book-educated, RINO “experts” are the ones who got the GOP into this mess.
We can talk about giving States the Freedom to be Liberal or Conservative. We can talk about States giving towns the Freedom to allow school prayer or not allow school prayer. Or to legalize marijuana. The result of all this Freedom is Diversity. People have more choices about what kind of community they want to live in. More Freedom, More Choices, More Diversity.
I like Diversity as well. Diversity, to me at least, does not mean that I have to spend extra money on retrofitting bathrooms for all the new genders that people are inventing.
Diversity does not mean accepting depravity.
But as a word, Diversity is a good thing. And Democrats love it. And when voters understand that what Democrats are doing is forcing everyone to accept Depravity, and calling it Diversity, and Republicans are allowing States, Counties and Towns the Freedom to choose whether they’ll allow Depravity, it’s the Republicans who are allowing real Diversity.
But it’s really - Less Government, More Freedom, More XYZ.
Less Government, More Freedom, More Jobs.
This is an easy one. Here is where Republicans can
talk about job killing regulations. They also can talk
about Austrian Economics. Much of many Republicans economic
ideas can be folded under this, provided the ideas aren’t
of the type that involve taking $ from taxpayers and spending it on creating jobs.
Less Government, More Freedom, More Diversity.
Ideas like US out of the UN, resisting one world government,
the 10th Amendment, sovereignty, etc can be folded under this - as well as many social issues. Abortion could be handled under this, or it could be handled differently.
It could be argued that the Government should not be
sanctioning the taking of Life Liberty or Property without Due Process of Law.
Good!!!! All of those book-educated, RINO “experts” are the ones who got the GOP into this mess.
Amen to that. It seems to me what they wrote was well thought out with the survival of the country in mind - how about "What's best for the Country" for a change! Sounds good to me. We don't need a bunch of trial lawyers running the country anymore. We need regular folks. . . .
You didn’t read the Maine GOP Platform. It looks like it was written by Ron Paul himself - except for the jihad part.
And much of what you’re saying about Ron Paul is wrong.
We’ve got so called “experts” in charge now. What has that gotten us????
arrrgh -
"experts in politics" is what got us into this mess - along with taking it slow and quiet.
It's far too late for that - us doing that was what allowed the socialist/Marxists get where they are
and what is that dumb thing about the boiling frog in reverse?
the Maine establishment didn't want to work with the Tea Party...so maybe they've learned a lesson.
I told 'em for years that the Achilles heal of the party is the protectionism of the 'establishment' members and putting people up for election not on who is most qualified and/or would have the best shot of winning - but "who's 'turn' is it?"
If the party is forced to drop that practice, which it looks like the new infusion of people active in the party can bring about, it will be "a good thing."
Thanks...beat me to it...
Fruit of the loon.
“The elitists on both sides need to understand, the Tea Party movement IS the general public!”
WE HAVE A WINNER! ! ! !
The last is the best, IMHO: “the Tea Party movement IS the general public.”
Code Pink style anti military diatribes are Ron Paul's legacy from the early 1990s. If anyone chooses to support him, that goes with him and they are supporting that as well.
Semper Fidelis
I guess you think that nothing the US military does could ever be seen as wrong. That’s fine. That I guess would be your Platform statement. The Republicans believe that it’s impossible for the US Military to ever do anything wrong ever.
And the Republicans believe that no one should ever criticize anything the US Military does ever.
I don’t have a strong opinion about it either way.
I would suggest that shouldn’t be the Republican message, whether you agree with it or not.
I applaud the Tea Partiers efforts in Maine.
I concur with the warnings of others on here that Tea Partiers had better beware of the Ron Paulites and their agenda. It is NOT wholly a Tea Party agenda, and it will derail the Tea Parties bigtime if they let it.
Ron Paul wants to have a 18th century foreign and military policy in the 21st century world, and that’s simply not realistic. We have at least two global enemies who are seeking our destruction and the destruction of our way of life right now — Islamofascism and a resurgenct neo-Marxism. To ignore these threat internationally is beyond foolish, and to conclude that “if we don’t obther them they won’t bother us” is worse than sticking our collective heads in the sand, it’s sticking them up our.....
For that reason alone, Paulites disqualify themselves from ever controlling the Executive branch of our government, or holding on to anything LIKE a majority in Congress. Rep. Paul is an EXCELLENT Representative in the House, if for no other reason than to provide and example of what a restrained FISCAL Conservative must look like — a whole lot like a Libertarian! But on foreign policy and military policy issues — run from him. Remember that my Tea Party compatriots!
Well Paultard, you will have to just guess that because nothing I have said indicates that I think that. I have said that using armored vehicles to clear an enemy who won't surrender sure beats taking casualties.
I further suggest that (Contrary to what Ron Paul was going around spouting on TV) it is the right thing to do.
As a matter of fact, I will further stipulate that this lack of ability to kill westerners and earn 72 virgins caused the Iraqi forces to quit holding out in trenches, surrender immediately, and saved Iraqi lives (Although I admit Saddam promptly executed many of them when they were repatriated)
And the Republicans believe that no one should ever criticize anything the US Military does ever.
Believe me, I and most veterans I know have spent hours criticizing things the military have done wrong. Using A9 Ace armored bulldozers and tanks with plow attachments in combat are not among those things, nor is not halting an assault in the middle of an operation to accept the surrender of men who break while the unit they are part of is in battle. Some things you do not have the luxury to do.
I don’t have a strong opinion about it either way.
Yeah, that's why you spout the same drivel on thread after thread. Perhaps what you really mean is "I don’t have a strong defensible opinion about it either way."
What the author doesn't understand is that the tea partiers are the public.
What are you talking about?
I do not have a strong opinion either way on this issue.
I do think that any sort of thinking like “the US Military can never be wrong” is not something to really discuss. It’s not on message. It’s not conservative. It’s not part of the Limited Government Conservative message. I’m not saying it’s liberal, but it’s not really part of the left / right, liberal / conservative divide. And in Maine, and around the country, the tea partiers and the Ron Paul people are saying basically - less government. And in Maine, people were very specific about what government they do not want. All of the bits and pieces don’t always fit together nicely, but they do say, collectively, “this is the government we do not want”. And it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks about whether the US Military can ever do anything wrong. As long as everyone is focused on the goal (limited government), people can agree to disagree on questions of whether or not the US Military can ever do anything wrong.
Whoever is running for POTUS in 2012 should just go to Ron Paul and offer him Sec. of Treasury.
Yup - but what I’d like to see happen is Ron Paul to run, but this time drop out exactly when he should (that is, if he doesn’t win) - which would be exactly when he gets the treasury offer which is right around the time that the likelihood of him winning falls beneath a certain point. Prior to that, he would have identified a candidate or candidates that he could work with, who are ideologically similar. That candidate, his partner candidate, might refrain from attacking each other too nastily, and do any number of other things which would increase the likelihood of Ron Paul either becoming Sec Treasury or President. Personally, I’d like that other person to be Palin. Paul could attack a RINO like Romney in the debates, and be nice to Palin, perhaps. Tear at the foundation of Romney’s arguments, etc etc. Palin can refrain from attacking Paul too much.
I got the impression that McCain and Thompson had some sort of deal back in 2008. McCain would be saying something during a debate and the camera would cut away to Thompson nodding his head favorably to what McCain was saying. Sarah Palin could definitely benefit by having Ron Paul sending his people her way, especially because they are seeking votes from many of the same type of people. There’s a good chance that it wouldn’t happen at all that way though.
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.