Posted on 09/20/2007 6:40:58 PM PDT by Petronski
Over the last two days The Oregon Poll was seen by almost 400 "unique visitors," most of them in support of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. The majority of these people came from these two links on the web.
ronpaulforums.com
stormfront.org
ANS: The basements of mommies across the nation.
I made neither epithet nor perjorative, but, except for my four-word summation in one post, stuck to the facts. Even the unflattering analogies I used (government as a neglectful parent) were targeted against those Paul criticizes. But you have no way of refuting what I say, so you mock outrageous statements which I did not say.
If RP had voted to hand over control of what you can and can’t watch on television to Congress, there would still be porn on cable.
Wrong!
Freepers who are anti-Iraq war need one of two things.
1) You get zotted for good, sent to some forum more suitable to your suicidal foreign policy beliefs
2) You leave Freerepublic forever
You can't be a anti-Iraq war AND a Freeper without endless and relentless attacks by me and others.
Be prepared for a lot more of this.
It’s a way of bumping the thread. Not so boring as BMFLR.
That’s why we see so many “Bush’s fault” posts, that kind of thing.
Ah. A “me too”.
None of this matters. Everything will be done by Petronski to smear a good and decent man just because he happens to advocate the same foreign policy position on foreign wars that a majority of freepers advocated when Clinton was in office (remember Kosovo?)
You left quite a bit out of your history. Rather than the "funny uncle" Paul was in the GOP mainstream during the Kosovo War. Rush, DeLay, and Hannity and most freepers, like Paul, opposed that war as Wilsonian. A majority of Republicans in the Senate (almost all conservatives) voted for an end to bombing even while our troops were in harm's way. Heck, even though Bush supported Clinton's war, even he called for a more humble foreign policy. It is not Paul who has strayed from this anti-Wilsonianism but the rest of the party. Some old-time freepers remember this well (though some choose to "revise")
Question, how did you stand on Kosovo? Pro or antiwar?
I realize politics can be a nasty business, but the fact is what's going on here is a plain old Borking.
'Borking', -- a verb meaning "to attack a person's reputation and views unfairly".
I agree, the mans reputation is being smeared.
However, fair questions are being raised about his constitutional views on war-making powers, - questions that he has not [to date] answered satisfactorily.
So, - just like Bork, he has brought the whirlwind down on his own head.
TL:
I know there's some legitimate questions involved, but I don't see this as having the potential to provide any rational answers.
Captain Kirk wrote:
-- a good and decent man [is smeared] just because he happens to advocate the same foreign policy position on foreign wars that a majority of freepers advocated when Clinton was in office (remember Kosovo?)
Good point, capt'n, -- one that illustrates this controversy over war powers does have the potential to provide rational answers.
Many here saw Kosovo as clintonian politics, cynically cloaked as 'saving the world for democracy'.
I doubt any here see Iraq in that light.
Disassembling a watch has the potential to provide rational answers about how it works or why it doesn’t. Doing it with a sledgehammer and a cutting torch will render whatever potenetial there was pretty well worthless.
Yes, I have seen that quote before. SJackson has used it several times. The problem is that, as I said, these aren't columns written for the AFP. They're merely reprints of uncopyrighted columns from his House website. Yet, SJackson continues to imply that they were written for the AFP by using that misleading quote.
BTW, if you use the google search engine on the AFP home page limiting the search to AFP, you’ll get 144 hits on Paul and 51 on Ron Paul within that website.
Nearly all of those are articles which merely mention Congressman Paul at some point. Only a couple appear to actually be written by him.
About the only defense remaining to you and GWB would be a claim that Ron Paul has not authorized them to use his name or his work. That is a rather weak defense open to attack along these lines: “Why hasn’t Ron Paul denied an organization of this nature, the use of his name or works?”
He hasn't specifically authorized them to do so. I don't know whether he could deny them permission to use his columns while maintaining their status as uncopyrighted works, so having them reprinted in some undesirable places is the price you pay for having the columns distributed as widely as possible.
You may be correct Okie, in your statements about his war on terror stance, but I saw him only once on TV, and his approach to the Illegal Alien situation hit home with me. Here in California, we are totally being robbed in our taxes, fees, ever higher bond measures, surcharges, levies, and even more taxes to curb the gang violence and to support these people. I never read or saw any of his comments on the war. I might think differently about him then.
We are fighting a losing battle on illegal immigration here.
There is no doubt that an assortment of liberaltarians, truthers, white Aryan supremacists, and antiwar cut and runners have all found a home with Ron Paul. My problem with the situation was that if he considered himself to be a columnist for the white supremacist organization, then he obviously agreed with their beliefs. But, it seems as if he only appears for the benefit of the supremacists. He himself receives no benefit from them and they obtain the column material in the same way anyone else can. There is no special arrangement with Ron Paul.
I don’t believe that Ron Paul sought out their affiliation, so I can not blame him for having any of the ideas the white supremacists hold. But, I still believe he needs to disassociate himself from the Aryans because when it suits the MSM, they will attempt to paint him and other republicans as supporters of racists, whether it is true or not.
Ron Paul may be a crazy loon but he doesn’t seem to be a noxious one.
Interventionism does not mean that we must attempt to fight every war or to create wars where they are not needed. It means fighting when and where we choose for reasons of our choosing. The utter failure of isolationist paleocowards to distinguish between interventionism and globaloney or globalism or messianic Wilsonism is yet one more reason disqualifying the social misfit movement from any excuse for calling themselves (yourselves) conservative.
PaleoPaulie is an eccentric jerk who would not know American interests if they jumped up and bit him which they will when the caucuses and primaries start. At that point, he and you who support his craven candidacy will surely find out how few actual Republicans and how few actual conservatives support the candidacy of the paleosurrenderman.
Appearing as a multiple visitor on Alex Jones Show will not help him. Nor will the earmarks that he insists be included in appropriations bills to grease his constituents while he poses for fiscal conservative holy pictures voting against the enacted bill. Nor will his filing pro-life bills while denying that the fedgov has any jurisdiction to protect the unborn. Nor will his faux "constitutionalist" act where he favors this policy or that and even files bills but regrets that nothing can be done about whatever because of the constitution. He is a two-faced phony and fraud. After all, he is a "paleowhatever."
While he is not an anti-Semite, he draws them as supporters. His idea of foreign policy is to stand idly by while Ahmanutjob and the Iranian mullahs prepare nuclear weapons to incinerate Israel, an American ally. That is good enough for the actual anti-Semites and skinheads to support him. The latter category is also attracted by the libertoonian vision of a drug intoxicated society which, rightly or wrongly, they and the aging hippie types ascribe to him.
Anti-Wilsonianism???? Maybe that is relevant to paleoworld but not to conservative world. Since conservatives were never Wilsonians (We hate the UN as we hated the League of Nations). Lovers of international diployak was not a description of conservatives of the actual variety. Nixon was NOT a conservative. Nor was Eisenhower. Nor was Feckless Ford. Nor was Bush the Elder. Bush the Younger has had the intestinal fortitude to attack our enemies when they have attacked us. PaleoPaulie wants to hide his feathered head in the sand ostrichstyle like the late and unlamented Eurocoward Neville Chamberlain. PaleoPaulie and his followers are permanently attainted by the stench of surrendermonkeyism. He is not and never will be acceptable as a Republican presidential candidate. Nor are those few who publicly share his views while posing as Republican: UpChuck Hagel, Weepy Walter Jones, John (?) Duncan of Tennessee and a handful of other obsolete war wimps.
Your position seems to be that only Dr. Demento is holding fast to what you hallucinate is the GOP foreign policy dogma but is in reality nothing more than warmed over peacecreepism (Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Jane Fonda posing as Audie Murphy, Harold Moore and Kate Smith does not work) and that 98-99% of the GOP has defected. Talk about the tail (or something in that vicinity) wagging the dog!
Soon enough, paleoPaulie will be back to the Libertoonian Party braying in the wilderness and becoming the Liberty Bell Lemke of our time. Lemke had vocal followers too.
I included the relevant history and left out the usual self-serving Paulistinian lies. A Republican motto for war comes from the late Douglas MacArthur who is rumored to have known a thing or two on the subject: In war, there is no substitute for victory!
A HUMBLE foreign policy????? Does the US have reason to be humble???? If we are humble, how many innocents die while the paleocowardice caucus hang out tut-tutting against, well, violence and being so proud of an American with no more backbone than to sit back and watch the slaughter with equanimity. If paleowhatevers took over our government, would they resurrect Cain to be their Secretary of State or their Defense Secretary???? He was not his brother's keeper either, as you may recall. Any senator of whatever party or whatever philosophical persuasion should be ashamed of any vote to cut off bombing in Kosovo while our troops were in the field. OTOH, the last Guy who was perfect was crucified for his efforts and we are not expecting to see His like again except under truly extraordinary and rather final circumstances, and even then, not likely as a US Senator.
If the GOP has ever been so lacking in imagination and principle as to define its foreign policy (in the formula of limp-wrist antiwar antiAmerican Justin(e) Raimondo and his antiwar.com) as "anti-Wilsonian," rather than favoring genuine human freedom consistent with moral tradition, it should not so defined its foreign policy. We can ill afford a policy of sitting back and waiting to be attacked AGAIN by the Islamofascist enemies of our nation. Destroy their movement in its crib by PREVENTIVE WAR as necessary to protect the USA from the consequences of allowing Islamofascist A Bombs.
I came on board as a Republican when I was a teenager in 1963 or 1964 in response to the decidedly interventionist Goldwater campaign. That was the year when the Northeastern money obsessives lost control of the national GOP. It turned out that Goldwater was up to his eye balls in Planned Barrenhood and support for homosexuality and abortion. In those respects, he was no better than the northeastern liberals whom he had toppled. We then continued on to Ronaldus Maximus with Goldwater playing dog in the manger all the way (with due apologies to man's best friend).
We ain't going back. We are also not credentialing or including the social misfits and ideological eccentrics who are the lesser (pseudoRepublican) wing of paleoPaulie's supporters and we are not ignoring the fact that he draws heavily upon the pro-drug, antiwar left for supporters. You folks can pose as you wish but you cannot extinguish the sad reality of this silly "paleo" movement and its sillier candidate. Not only will your pathetic candidate NOT be nominated, much less elected, but he won't be taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of Republicans because we know better than to buy his pro-Al Qaeda snake oil. He remains a "funny uncle."
Oh, and because actual conservatives do not share your eccentric reading of history, does not mean that we are "revising" history, quite the contrary.
CK: If you are going to attack Petronski by name, you ought to display the courage to ping him to your attack on him. As to “smearing” paleoPaulie’s character, there is not much to smear.
I have one simple respone to your post;
Ditto...
(we are revising history, riiiight...)
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.