Paul faithful flock to Spartanburg appearance (sixteen standing ovations!)

GoUpstate.com ^ | 7/21/07 | Jason Spencer

[George W. Bush]

Paul faithful flock to Spartanburg appearance

A little-known Texas congressman seeking the Republican nomination for president visited Spartanburg on Saturday and seemed to arrive with all the makings of rock-star candidate for his party — despite polling low, little name recognition and a relatively small campaign staff.

Supporters call it the “Ron Paul Revolution.” You might’ve seen it on signs or T-shirts. Or MySpace.

Paul received no less than 16 standing ovations during his hour-plus speech and question-and-answer session at the Summit Pointe Event Center — first, when he entered the room, a second one when a re-entered after doing a quick television interview and a third when he was formally introduced.

Thunderous applause also followed when he decried the Patriot Act (ovation No. 4), when he said America should never go to war without a declaration from Congress or because of a United Nations resolution (ovation Nos. 8 and 9), and when he attacked President Bush’s foreign policy and handling of the war in Iraq (ovation Nos. 11, 12 and 13).

“No nation building. No policing of the world. Peace is popular,” Paul said. “The sooner we get out of Iraq, the fewer Americans will die. And I say, it’s time to come home.”

About 400 people — half from out of state — were shoehorned into Summit Pointe for a barbecue luncheon that doubled as a fundraiser for the Spartanburg County Republican Party. The local GOP, after expenses, made an estimated $5,000 on the event.

Paul was invited to speak to the local party faithful (they numbered about 80 in the crowd) after county chairman Rick Beltram took offense at Paul’s explanation of the 9/11 attacks as “blowback” from America’s past intervention in the affairs of other countries during a GOP debate. That led to a widely distributed online tit-for-tat between Beltram and Paul supporters, and Beltram eventually invited Paul here to explain himself.

Blowback, in and of itself, was not mentioned Saturday, though Paul often alluded to it, going as far back as World War I, “which (President) Woodrow Wilson got us into unnecessarily, and drew the lines in the Middle East that we’re suffering for today.”

Beltram said he agreed with Paul on most issues except foreign policy, and that he believes the Texan converted some Upstaters to his revolution with Saturday’s speech.

“I left feeling like a hero,” Beltram said. “I got more positive comments after that event than all the other presidential events combined.”

[DJ MacWoW]

Anyone can post his speech. He doesn’t copyright them.

Let's see, Lew Rockwell, Antiwar.com and Blue state DOT Com like him. What do these sites say about Reagan? Bush? Most conservatives? When the left likes a "Republican" candidate, it's time to vote elsewhere.

[Dr.Deth]

Courtesy Mark Steyn:

Ronald Reagan was three years into the decade-long twilight of his illness, and unable to recognize most of his colleagues from the Washington days. But Mr Ravin wanted to express his appreciation. “Mr President,” he said, “thank you for everything you did for the Jewish people, for Soviet people, to destroy the Communist empire.”

And somewhere deep within there was a flicker of recognition. “Yes,” said the old man, “that is my job.”

Yes, that was his job.

[BlackElk]

Woofie: If a resolution of Congress authorizing the use of military force against our nation's enemies was headlined: A List of This Week's Groceries to Be Bought, would it nonetheless be a Declaration of War?

2nd Question: If a list of next week's groceries to be purchased were printed as a Congressional Resolution and headlined: Declaration of War, would it be a constitutional declaration of war?

The above questions seek your answer to the everlasting question of form or substance? Many discern no substance in paleoPaulie and his supporters who whine about declarations of war when they are only advancing their absolute reluctance to seek military solutions.

Just asking as we wade through the ruined synapses of what pass for "paleo""brains" looking, probably in vain, for some sign of IQ points.

[BlackElk]

Don’t forget Justine(e) Lavender Raimondo and the Rockford Institute as well.

[DJ MacWoW]

It’s just gets better and better. I’ve paid little attention until today............and I’m sitting here laughing.

[CJ Wolf]

Black-deer in the headlights: It’s not a declaration of war no matter how much you claim it to be. Even Bush and his administration confirm that the ‘war’ on Iraq is not a declared war.

If it’s no big deal then why did they not Declare War? Paul made it easy for them to declare war. They chose not to. There are reasons we didn’t formally declare war. Do you know what they are?

[rineaux]

the more and more some of the freepers dislike ron paul, the more i start to pay attention to him. the reality is the other rep candidates are saying the same regergatating crap.

[BlackElk]

Your question suggests that paleoPaulie was posturing again as sponsor. If so, so what? Cuckoocinich sponsors bills too and no one takes him seriously either.

Maybe you can answer a few questions:

1. When did paleoPaulie's bill get committee approval?

2. When was the bill debated on the floor of the House?

3. How many House members voted for it?

4. Or was this just another example of posturing by paleoPaulie the antiwar antiAmerican showpony?

5. Other than maybe such a bill as naming a post office in his district for Hanoi Jane or Tokyo Rose or Noam Chomsky, has paleoPaulie ever been the original sponsor of even one piece of legislation that has ever been enacted in a career dating back to 1976?

6. If the answer to #5 is no, do you suppose that reflects the view of his Congressional colleagues that he is as crazy as Charles Manson or that even Republican Congresses disagree with him to put it mildly and that, whatever the merits of his proposals, they will go nowhere because he is despised.

[federal]

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Yes that’s it “complicit”. Blah, blah blah.

[Designer]

"..why don't they fear us? Could it be because we're not sewing terrorists into pigskin sacks.."

I think you're on to something here.

Agreed; our politicians are much too wimpy to do anything like that.

[BlackElk]

Oh my gosh! That's right! The Mexicans are coming! The Mexicans are coming! One if by land. Two if by sea! Three if its both! Four if they use balloons or hang gliders or other aircraft! It must have been Mexican agricultural workers that hijacked those 9/11 planes!!!!

If paleoPaulie were the nominee that would sure prove that Dubya was wrong on your second paragraph. The president signing a MUCH MORE LIBERAL amnesty bill will be Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist or Osama bin Bama or the Breck Girl (or to be as delusional as the "paleos" maybe Cuckoocinich the Demonrat whose foreign policy is paleoPaulie's very own).

Does the "North American Union" stuff come from the fertile imaginations at American Opinion? Look, under your bed! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's an international banker!!!! Yawn!!!

[Designer]

1. When did paleoPaulie's bill get committee approval?

2. When was the bill debated on the floor of the House?

3. How many House members voted for it?

4. Or was this just another example of posturing by paleoPaulie the antiwar antiAmerican showpony?

5. Other than maybe such a bill as naming a post office in his district for Hanoi Jane or Tokyo Rose or Noam Chomsky, has paleoPaulie ever been the original sponsor of even one piece of legislation that has ever been enacted in a career dating back to 1976?

1. don't know

2. probably never

3. several House members signed on as co-sponsors

4. I doubt it

5. don't know

Since I don't reside in Paul's District, I don't keep tabs on his House career, just am aware of some bills. The majority of House members are simply not interested in de-funding the United Nations. Was your own Congressman a co-sponsor?

[DreamsofPolycarp]

I will tire of it when paul apologizes to America for blaming her for 9-11

You lie. No other way to put it. And you lie even after you have been shown clearly that you are lying. Ron Paul did NOT "blame America for 9/11" and it is a stupid, vicious lie to claim that anything he said in the debates does so. I am getting fed up with single digit IQ dunderheads who are so bereft of the ability to simply parse out a plain english sentence that they turn a clear documented truth (actions do have consequences, and the middle east is no exception) into some mewling "it is all our fault" attempt to "blame America." It is NOT what he said, and you people have heard tons of people, from Ron Paul supporters to the NRO (which is NOT a Paul supporter) explain to you in painstaking detail why it is not so. Yet you continue to prance around like some retard version of Archimedes,dripping wet and shrieking "EUREKA" as though you have just discovered an irrefutable axiom.

I once saw a brain damaged chimp in the zoo that behaved in the same manner, endlessly fascinated by the rubber band he stretched, captivated by the fact that it continually returned to its original shape. So it is with the "blame America first" paulietroll caterwaulers. No matter how many times or by how many people or how clearly it is explained to them they insist on howling at the moon like some deranged inbred cur and spitting out the slobber just long enough to intone "Ron Paul says 9/11 is our fault!"

I swear I don't see how they can manage to remember their passwords to log in.

[TheZMan]

I disagree with you, but I did want to say that your response was damned funny. Rofl.

[HitmanLV]

I was always partial to Ringo, myself.

[ejonesie22]

Well put. We can’t withdraw from the very world we have created, but must deal with it on our terms, by our will.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Do you honestly think you are being witty with that crap?

I thought I was the king of incomprehensibility with long run on sentences.

Your little cutesy-isms of “cookoocinich” only serves to make what you say not worth reading for trying to wade through all that bombast.

[TheZMan]

“I’ll be your huckleberry” ?

[BlackElk]

Woofie I answer your questions but you don't answer mine. As the French would say: Quelle surprise!

We are fighting a war. Two actually. Congress authorized the use of military force. Personally, I don't care if they added "Mary had a Little Lamb and Was her doctor surprised!!!" to the resolution so long as we get to fight the war. If Congress refused permission, we would have gotten ourselves a new Congress.

If the reason is not wanting to transgress the UN Charter almighty (which, as a treaty, is the law of the land via the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the original US constitution which makes me want to barf but is not the question du jour. Ask Congressman "Constitution"head if you don't believe me.), that would be my response.

It is obvious also that they did not declare war because they wanted to stir up Bush Derangement Syndrome on the paleo so-called right.

[HitmanLV]

Not that Ringo, Doc. The other Ringo! ;-)