Posted on 05/30/2007 4:44:20 AM PDT by BGHater
As some readers of this column may know, the first "real" job I ever had was working for Rep. Ron Paul back in 1976. I went to visit the Texas Republican a few months ago and was pleased to see he had not changed much at all since the days when I was a legislative assistant on his congressional staff.
At that time, I did not know Ron planned a run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. When I later learned of it, I thought he was being hopelessly Quixotic -- tilting at windmills. I thought Ron's views about limited constitutional government and nonintervention in the affairs of others nations were hopelessly out of step with the vast bulk of Republican primary voters.
On the war, these voters remain solidly in the George W. Bush camp -- willing to defend the war in Iraq to the bitter end and highly intolerant of anyone who raises doubts about its wisdom or continuation. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani exemplified this attitude in the debate two weeks ago when he demanded that Ron apologize for his antiwar position.
However, significant cracks have developed in the wall of conservative support Mr. Bush enjoyed at the beginning of the war. Today, much is known about the lack of verifiable evidence of Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), about how the White House bullied those urging caution into reluctant support, and thoroughly screwed-up the Iraq occupation. Even Arizona Sen. John McCain, still a strenuous war supporter, has become outspoken on Bush's poor management of it.
Consequently, more than a few conservatives have gone over to the antiwar side. Unfortunately for Ron, they are mostly former Republicans today, unlikely to vote in a Republican primary.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Ron Paul ping
Ron Paul is the MOST pro-gun person in Congress. Always has been...
I was thinking of “libertines,” too.
The lectures are getting old. You Ron Paul folks sit for an hour or two or three of indocrination each day and frankly I’m tired of being lectured just because I think a vote for Ron Paul would be a wasted vote, and because I have a life. Frankly I’m sick of hearing about Ron Paul. If his district wants to re-elect him to Congress, no problem. But spending any time, energy , or money on Ron Paul the Great is wasted. He doesn’t have a snowball’s chance. If you all want Hillary, you are going about it the right way by supporting a person who cannot win.
Where have I favored anti-Americanism, or been anti-war?
Criticising socialists is an obligation I enjoy. Now I've gone and stepped on your toes. Well....there is no right not to be criticized.
'Nation' building under Clinton was a U.N. operation.
What we are doing in Iraq is not nation building, but recovery.
No different than we did in Japan and Germany in WW2.
I'm not saying that Paul is totally right, but I think he is closer to right than wrong. I think we have a lot of flawed policies in the Middle East that need to be re-thought.
I would agree with that.
And alot of bad policy came being inconsistent and too weak, not from bombing them.
I do like Ron Pauls 'America's first' policy and if he would focus on that he would do well.
Whatever our foreign policy is, it should benefit U.S. interests both in the short and long term.
Untrue. We should start by “liberating” our own people FIRST. Put government back on it’s Constitutional leash. Then we can worry about exporting our “Constitutional Republic” instead of pushing Bush’s “democracy”.
As to you being antiwar and antiAmerican, if you support paleoPaulie, you are both. If not, perhaps not.
Dead Corpse: I guess PaleoPaulie just does not believe in our using guns against our nation’s enemies, huh????
If you see nothing wrong with either of those, then you are dumber than I could have possibly thought you were...
Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
****************
Fortunately, he's unelectable.
And yet, here you are, posting on a thread that is clearly about Ron Paul, who is even named in the title. One would think that if you were "sick of hearing of something" you simply wouldn't click on those posts.
No soup for you.
Wilsonianism or internationalism is employing the diployak artists endlessly to negotiate and negotiate what American interests to abandon in exchange for phony and dishonorable "peace" which amounts to nothing more than temporary cease fire to allow the enemy to catch up. Far from being an interventionist, Wilson argued that WWI was the "war to end all wars." Sounds wimpy enough to be almost paleoPaulieism.
If you do not understand the difference, then you are eagerly displaying your ignorance.
We did not and do not need a League of Nations or a United Nations. We probably could manage without the pantywaists who populate the State Department. Put the money into beefing up the military where results are obtainable.
Pre-emptive warfare is a noble and practical policy. We live in a craven world in which some lip service is paid to the UN. In the last analysis, the UN was not in charge of the Iraq War and we ignored the protests of the corrupt Security Council members and toppled Saddam Hussein. Whether our motive was said to be that Saddam was a vegetarian (probably wasn't) or that he had WMD (probably did and we should search in Syria) or that he wore his beret wrong does not move me in the slightest. It took a while to stop dithering and to see to it that Hans Blix's stalling act (which WAS a UN project) came to an end along with Saddam's regime. Nonetheless, we did what needed doing to Saddam, Uday and Kucay. We ought to beef up our military, care less about "nation-building" and do what needs doing wherever it needs doing (Venezuela? as one example).
If I should ever be tempted to be insulted, I shall recall that you are of a mind or something to support paleoPaulie the superwimp as a measure of how irrelevant your opinions are.
Do I get the impression that country C is Israel and you are no fan of Israel?
Dead Corpse: I would far prefer that you review #53 for more examples of the follies of paleoPaulie, this time on guns. Your opinions of my intelligence, given that you are a paleoPaulie cheerleader, are no more relevant or accurate than paleopaulie’s pantywaist foreign and military policy delusions or his imagined status and pretensions as constitutionalist without portfolio.
He voted against those particular bills, out of hundreds, as they either had poison pill riders attached, or extended government authority beyond Constitutional boundaries.
Which about five minutes and a google search would have proven out for you. IF, as I said, you were even remotely honest...
Folks, we are being spammed.
WE are experiencing part of the Dog Paul* Internet Drive.
This is getting ridiculous.
How many Dog Paul* stories can we see per day here?
Why does JimRob block Rudy supporters but not Dog Paul* ones - who could do a lot more damage in 2008?
I say let him be honest - run as a Libertarian - he is NOT a Republican!
(*because on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog...)
Conservatives will become a quaint and powerless movement.
Therefore, I am for ANY candidate that is against illegal immigration! That is the ONE critical thing I look for.
Also, since we are only in the debate stage, favoring one candidate over another now, (even the non "media anointed" candidates) isn't going to get Hitlery elected - so we should do our shopping with as many options open as possible NOW, before we get stuck with a RINO that will turn all of us OFF.
So all this bitchiness here made me go to Paul’s website to see what he says about immigration, and here it is - judge for yourself...
Issues
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
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.