Posted on 12/26/2011 7:29:22 PM PST by TBBT
Who is "we", paleface? Speak for yourself.
I have ancestors who fought in the war to establish this country, and I'll be damned if I'm going to willingly give my vote to some ruling class, establishment turncoat.
I'd rather write in Sarah Palin's name and go home to dig my fox hole.
>> You keep proving your point all the way to perdition >>
Switch to vodka and drop the bourbon. You’ll be more fun on the forum. But the question was what could convince a Ronulun not to vote for Paul. I said your ridiculous post proved that nothing could. And now you’ve confirmed it in your own words yet again.
Thanks for playing, and no, we won’t go “to perdition” regardless of this thread’s outcome. But for the life of me, I don’t see how a vote for Paul saves us from Perdition even if that were the outcome.
It comes down to voting your conscience or voting the lesser of two evils. Sux, don't it? Every damn election.
I’m no Ron Paul supporter, but you do know that “stopping the Holocaust” was not a goal of ours in WWII, right?
Promise you'll give them back their "cloaking device" that made Ron appear to be a Conservative.
If Paul is a “troofer”, then he’s automatically got 35% of the US population as supporters. We are Sooooo screwed!
What you write is my own sentiment: Gingrich, but admiration for Ron Paul who takes a stand for what he believes in. And what he believes in would surely have saved America (and much of the world) the financial crisis, the spread of welfare and wars of unintended consequences (i.e. the diaspora of Christians by the 100s of thousands from their ancient homelands). Zillions of bucks to prop despots with nothing to show for it, but the Muslim brotherhood taking over.
And yes, he’s being slimed like Sarah Palin. Slimed and smeared. Probably because he actually DOES believe in something... which these days is the real and dangerous crime as opposed to going along with business as usual plus or minus a few permitted tweaks. Now they’re even throwing in the Holocaust.
A very unpretty spectacle.
Ronulan?
Oh, you mean Paulestinian.
Thing is, he believes in the US Constitution like nobody else out there.
He’d have a hard time agreeing to the oath of office honestly though. It’s not enough to support the constitution, there’s that part of defending it too. He’s not CIC material
It won’t change the fact that we will suffer the well earned wrath of God that will make all of our wars put together look like a picnic
You think a presidential candidate will change that fate? You folks deserve all the derision coming your way
Easy, run a Dem against him - that's all most of them are.
Alf Landon had a better shot of winning in 1936 than this boob does.
Actually this is a pretty bad question that was asked of him. We (and the allies) knew full well the Holocaust was going on and we did nothing. We say on our hands and then pretended we didnt know. There is no question FDR knew what was going on and did nothing.
And public opinion was very much against us getting involved in Europe’s mess.
Then Pearl Harbor occurred. And that changed everything. Congress declared war (the last time we officially declared a war) and the rest is history.
But the question asked of Ron Paul is: Would you send troops to Europe to stop Hitler and the Holocaust? FDR was faced with that decision, and he decided not to get involved until he absolutely had to and public opinion shifted.
We still struggle with this debate today. If we see atrocities going on in another country, should we step in and stop it or mind our own business? It’s not a liberal vs. conservative question because people have different opinions on this no matter what their party affiliation.
All I see on this website and the media at large are smear campaigns aimed at any candidate who’s poll numbers challenge those of Romney.
Right now Newt and Paul are in contention with Romney in Iowa and so we get the smear jobs.
I’ve not paying attention to this crap.
Paul’s foreign policy views kill his potential supporters like me.
The libertarian movement he is associated with is drawing lefties like garbage attracts flies.
But I’ll never deny that Paul has been a consistent advocate for less government and smaller government.
America needs a president as bold of either of the Roosevelts, Wilson or Johnson in moving us towards smaller government and more freedom.
That’s where I stand.
“Then Pearl Harbor occurred. And that changed everything. Congress declared war (the last time we officially declared a war) and the rest is history.”
Well, you are right- as far as you go. But we are talking Nazi Germany. We did NOT declare on Germany. Germany declared war on the USA.
If you learn a little history, it can only help....
I immediately walked up to Paul and introduced myself, and Paul smiled at me and shook my hand. I told him that I had always wanted to ask him a question, and that it was a hypothetical question, but I would appreciate his answer nonetheless. Paul smiled, and welcomed the question. At this point there were about 15 people surrounding us, listening.
And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?”
I have a couple of problems with this. First, as was alluded to, we didn't fight Hitler because of what he was doing to the Jews, or for that matter the Gypsies, or Poles or other Slavs, whom he also planned to enslave or exterminate. We fought him because he declared war on us, immediately Japan attacked our fleet in Pearl Harbor.
Second, we didn't risk our bombers or troops on trying to prevent the Holocaust, when we knew it was happening. We could have bombed the rail lines leading to the death camps, and gummed up the killing machine. It wasn't a priority. A visit to the Holocaust Museum is instructive in this regard.
So, to ask what we would have done to save the Jews if Hitler hadn't declared war on us is to imply that we actually went out of our way to do anything about it when in fact he did. It falls flat. And I don't support Paul.
The problem for them is -- they never will get the money; it always finds another home. With the debt and deficit ballooned out of sight, that money isn't heading in their direction. The naturally productive ones will eventually “grow up” and realize the truth about living in a safe, free market society but many will hang fast to the hope (libertarians for sure) that once the "war on drugs" and the "evil military complex” have their wings clipped, some of those trillions of “wasted” dollars will certainly flow to them. It won't and their lot will be worse. We have for too long been building “me-me-itis” generations, whose values and goals are nurtured and fanned by teachings of socialist professors spawned in the Sixties who have multiplied themselves with our youth.
So Ron Paul is their cup of tea. They’re only one step away from OWS (most likely have a foot in both camps already). If Ron Paul definitively said, "I will not run third Party," much of his support would evaporate today. Which is precisely why he has not ruled it out.
Paul and his supporters are idiots. However, FDR didn’t send troops to Europe to stop the Holocaust either. It occurred for other reasons.
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.