Posted on 01/09/2008 8:54:49 AM PST by connell
Leave. Just go.
Mr. Paul, you are NOT a Republican. You may have views that intersect with some aspects of the Republican platform. That does NOT make you a Republican.
The Republican Party is a big tent movement. We don't apply nearly the same strictness when it comes to tests of ideological purity as the Democrats do, but we still have some standards. And you, sir, do not even come close to meeting them.
People who blame America for the acts of war made against it are not Republicans.
People who think that we blew up our own buildings on 9/11...or who hint that we might have...or who attract the support of people with such beliefs...are not Republicans.
People who may be receiving secret funding from George Soros...and who certainly receive energy and succor from radical leftists...are not Republicans.
People who have become the darling of, and the recipient of support from, America's neo-Nazis and white supremacists---and who refuse to openly repudiate that support---are not Republicans.
And people who publish racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American newsletters...are not Republicans.
Oh, and your protestations of innocence regarding this racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American newsletter to which you attached your name are absurd. As Jonah Goldberg said yesterday on the Michael Medved show, if...
(Excerpt) Read more at modernconservative.com ...
Most likely the same guy as you. Ron Paul does match my political beliefs most closely EXCEPT with regard to pulling out of Iraq immediately. I agree with his reasoning that we should have a congressional declaration of war instead of authorized conflicts because those never come to an end, i.e. Korea, Bosnia, Gulf War I
I am amazed that that single issue has garnered him so much caustic criticism. This time we aren’t in a single issue election unless that single issue is stopping the growth of Fed. Govt. and shrinking it dramatically while taking extreme measures to return individual liberty back to americans.
I agree, in all honesty I’d rather have Paul remain in Congress but I wouldn’t be upset with him as POTUS. I’d rather him than 3 of the top 4 candidates. I want him to stay in the race to help shape the debate silencing him is akin to muzzling one of the few dogs barking for individual liberty at the expense of government influence.
The zoo incident is a microcosm of our foreign “policy.” We taunt the tiger by having our troops in over 120 countries around the world, then sometimes have to wonder why the tiger attacks us. That we then have to shoot the tiger is an unfortunate (and unnecessary) byproduct of intervening in the affairs of other nations. Were we merely to VISIT other nations, say with a port call by an Amphibious Ready Group or a Carrier Battle Group, without taunting the tiger by STAYING, often for decades, we would be able to project all the power we need to without stirring up hatreds and resentments, as we do under our current policies.
Run Paul fanatic, arent’ you?
All the years I spent in the Marine Corps I felt similarly. I never really could understand why so many people, wherever we had permanent bases, loathed us so much. And, at the same time, when we made port calls, a VERY temporary visit, we were made so welcome... I never really did figure out why we had to spend so much of our OWN money defending Japan and Germany, who, at the time and yet today, were our biggest competitors in manufacturing and marketing... I guess with the money they saved, courtesy of the US taxpayers, they could often afford to dump products here or give large subsidies to their own industries. And all of this LONG before I ever heard of Dr. Paul.
How “conservative” is it, really, to maintain what amounts to a foreign empire which subsidizes foreign competitors to our own industries, subsidizes those who vow murder on our heads, subsidizes nasty, evil tyrants (like the late, unlamented Saddam Hussein) and requires the AMERICAN PEOPLE to pay the tab, both in terms of money, lost opportunities and lost freedom?
How “conservative” is it to pursue the ILLUSION of security at the expense of our own liberties, not to mention the lost freedoms for our children and grandchildren?
How “conservative” is it to deride the one candidate who is absolutely NOT talking about taking us further down the road to socialism, while accepting and advancing the candidacies of three or four whose SOLE distinction from the RAT party candidates is the (R) after their names?
No, I am not FANATICAL about Dr. Paul. I am, however, relieved to no end that he is running so that I finally and at last don’t have to hold my nose when I cast my ballot.
Your arguments are specious at best, and strongly suggest to me that you belong to the Blame America First liberal loon crowd. You sound just like all those liberal’s who lament that all of our civil liberties have been removed from society. I’m still waiting for someone to demonstrated even a single instance of someone who has been denied their constitutional rights in this country. Sorry, but detainees don’t count. We have a right and responsibility to eliminate threats to our security by those who wish to attack us in like manner to 9/11/01.
And just for your information, while I might be deriding the moron Run Paul, nowhere have I posted anything close to an endorsement for any other candidate. I’m still waiting to see someone with the ability to lead to show up to the party. When you have all the inside information on all that is transpiring around the world with respect to our enemies and their plans to topple this country, come talk to me about how having military presence around the world is wrong. Until then, please don’t bother with your liberal platitudes.
This plea for Mr. Paul to leave the Republican Party would tend to imply that no one is welcome in the party who does not agree that all military conflicts that our president may lead us into are inerrant and just and right.
Left-wingers may like Paul’s stance on the war and feel so strongly about it that they lend him support (solely on that issue). Many right-wingers and Constitutionalists, who are genuine conservatives, also believe that we could have handled and can handle our enemies in a different manner (but still using military might — a necessity, I believe).
I am firmly against America being an global nation-builder. I am opposed to the year-in-and-year-out wars to end all wars (”perpetual wars for perpetual peace”). At the same time, I am for the building and maintaining of the mightiest and best-equipped military on the planet, and keeping it that way. I believe that if we need to obliterate anybody for the safety of our own nation, we should do it on the merits of doing it alone, and not because we have United Nations Organization mandates. We should go after the terrorist cells by stealth, and hit them in such a way that they can not recover (no matter where they are) — and I believe the media should know NOTHING about it at all until it is finished and assessed to have been a success.
But I believe our occupation of Iraq was unnecessary and was and is now a waste of resources and manpower. If we had kept our blabby media mouths SHUT to begin with, we could have used the prowess of our military to accomplish much more by stealth early on than we have accomplished in the past six years.
I am a Nationalist, in that I believe that we should put America FIRST (all of America as a nation, not only the economic elite). Mr. Paul is a Nationalist, and therefore it would be expected that Nationalists, even some in strains we think are too extreme to praise him.
I also believe we should never “mongrolize” our Nation by use of open borders in the way we are doing it NOW. That doesn’t make me a racist or a cruel man.
Having spent years in foreign countries myself, and having watched the lines at U.S. embassies and consulates for visas to the U.S., I must say, simply, THE WHOLE WORLD CAN’T GO TO THE UNITED STATES, AND THE UNITED STATES STILL REMAIN A SAFE AND A FREE COUNTRY. Our open borders and our liberal visa and immigrations policies, with lack of enforcement against violations will only serve to turn us into the Dis-United Mongrol States.
Now when we say things like that, there are many skin-heads who would raise their clenched fists and say, “Yeah, we agree.” But we are not skin heads. But the skin heads don’t realize that we would not incorporate them, either, into leadership, if we were in public office. I don’t believe Ron Paul would do so either.
Sometimes issues just happen to intersect, and the author of the piece as much as admits this.
I am a Duncan Hunter man, but I say, “STAY IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, MR PAUL, PLEASE. YOU ARE A POSITIVE INFLUENCE IN THE PARTY.”
I notice you have no rebuttal to my questions except to start name-calling and being otherwise tacky. So I leave you with this thought: “Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.” (Carl Schurz, 1872)
When you decide it’s time to start putting our country right again, call me. As long as you insist on going down the path trod by the old Roman Republic when it became the Roman Empire, thanks but no thanks. I want the American Republic handed us by the Founders. An American Empire is anathema to everything the Founding Fathers ever envisioned, yet it is down this path we are headed with too many so-called “conservatives” leading the pack, sort of like lemmings headed over a cliff. Yet when someone points out what you are doing and where you’re headed, all you can do is mock and deride and continue your march to disaster. For some reason you cannot or will not understand that the liberals, progressives, or socialists, whatever you want to call them, are the only ones who stand to gain from your obstinance. And the American People lose. Freedom once lost can almost NEVER be regained. Think about it.
VERY well said, sir. VERY well said. And Duncan Hunter would be on my short list of approved candidates were it not for Dr. Paul being in the race. Thanks for your comments.
I’ve rebutted, you missed it. You think that the framers of our constitution would not want to have our interests around the world protected? Our allies protected? Sorry, not buying your BS. When this nation was founded we did not face the issues that we face today. It is a completely different world today than in the 1700’s. The world is smaller, and the threats to our country and our allies real. Please name me one instance in our nations history where we invaded another nation unprovoked. Sorry, Iraq does not count. A war took place to dislodge Saddam from his invasion of Kuwait. He lost that war. He failed to follow the requirements put before him by the world after losing that war. The 2003 military campaign was not a new war. It was a resumption of military action against a nation state which lost a war, but didn’t act like it.
Empire? Leave this nation if you don’t like it. Find another one that is better. This nation, in more than 230 years, has never engaged in Empire building. We have negotiated with allies and non-allies both, and, when our national interests have been threatened, we’ve acted to defend them. Unfortunately, sometimes we acted way too late. The current world situation requires that we do not wait, and that lesson has been hard learned.
Freedoms lost? Where? Which ones? Do you not know about how liberties were curtailed much more so than today during WWII? And, when that war ended, the liberties were restored. What evidence do you have to proove that our liberties and freedoms have been lost? You say that all I do is mock and deride, but provide no basis for my position, but you have done much worse than I. Your conspiracy lunacy is on par with those who believe that our government attacked us on 9/11 and not those who are responsible.
Lemmings you say? I agree. Those of you who think that we must turn this country over to someone like Run Paul or the looney liberals are indeed lemmings. When you have an answer to my points, respond. Until then, just stop your rantings.
I wish that were true. However, the 'single' issue will be Iraq.
"Change" is the code-word for withdrawing from Iraq. The left is just too chickensh*t to be explicit.
$100 barrels of oil is change too, but not the right kind. Unless we get off the Arab teat and grow our own energy independence.
Given our investment in the ME, we should be awash in oil by now: gas should be less than a buck a gallon. That it isn't, suggests there is something wrong with this picture.
All of the cards are falling in place for the Dems in '08 and I'm at a loss as to why. Rallying behind a conservative under these circumstances may not have the necessary effect needed to thwart a second Clinton Coronation. Man, I hope I'm wrong 'cause I don't do communism.
I think so!
I disagree profoundly with what you are saying about “mongrelization.” To me, it’s about values, not blood. I have far more in common with a reasonably assimilated 1st generation Mexican who is a Republican and a Christian and a family-man than I do with a neo-Marxist, god-hating, elitist, nihilist, childless college professor who reads Noam Chomsky and just happens to be white like me.
However I don’t call wanting to legalize drug use in our country “conservative” and on that front Ron Paul is the most liberal candidate currently in either Republican or Democrat primaries.
Then you don’t understand the conservative concept of individual liberty and people deciding moral issues through thier local government.
No, you don't understand that without laws there can be no liberty. What you libertarians want is not liberty; it's antinomianism, which is anarchy.
The term "libertarian" is a misnomer, since those who espouse it are not truly interested in liberty. For most their main concern is the liberalization of drug laws. But your arguments are self-contradictory. "Legalization of drugs would reduce drug use, and allow us to tax it, and to regulate it."
Now let me see how that plugs into conservativism. New taxes, more regulation, plus a liberal drug policy. That doesn't sound very conservative. In fact it's not even truly libertarian.
Ron Paul would never destroy our military.
Never!
Here’s his few good plans for protecting America.
“There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today. I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines.” Ron Paul.
I see we have a turn over.
Two left but more will follow to swell the ranks of the Repbulican Party.
Got my neighbors interested and got them down to registrar to vote here in Illinois. Two more Republicans....they like the idea of having school vouchers for religious schools and Bush backed his promise to abolish partial birth abortion.
They ask me about Ron Paul...I told them he is a kook. He’s a 6%’er in the National Polls. Ron Paul is better being a 10 term congressman from Texas and hang with his white sheet homies.
“. . . 1st generation Mexican who is a Republican and a Christian . . . “
Do you see the qualifications you yourself have put on the individual with whom you have commonality? “Republican and a Christian.”
I have seen lines of people at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing extending 1/3 mile — no exaggeration — hoping to get various kinds of visas to the United States, and the Marine guards there will tell you that the lines can get longer than that. If the U.S. were to grant all those people entrance into the United States, what percentage of them do you think would be become “Republican and Christian?” The percentage would be too low to calculate.
Now, add to that the lines many blocks long in Manila, where sodomy is considered by the majority of the population to be just okay and acceptable, and even expectable. Christian? No! Republican? Not likely. Most likely Democrats or Democratic Party sympathizers, knowing what Filipinos want in government (We lived there six full years, through several national and local election cycles).
And we have seen the long lines at our conulate in Vladivostok, Russia, too (white folks mostly), but Christian? No! (Vicars of Vodka, maybe) Republicans? I guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of Russians would go Democratic. From childhood they have had a statist mind set, and statism is having a real revival in Russia NOW!
The current immigrations and border security (or lack thereof) policies of our Feds, obviously OK with Mr. Bush, heavily favor the designs of the Democratic Party.
And there is NO other country on earth that has a root or heritage of Christianity to match the Christian heritage of the United States. The paganism of the rest of the world is heavily encroaching upon our Christian heritage and underpinnings.
These are the things I am most concerned about. NO, color of skin is not really my concern. We have lived in minority status (speaking of color) in Asian countries for the past 20 years. To do the work we do requires genuine love for these people. We would not have survived in our work for six months if we had a skin color problem. We were by no means forced to serve in Asia, and if we had a color problem, we just would not have come.
At the same time, understanding something of the moral, social, political, and spiritual mind set of the general populations of these countries, I don’t want to see influxes of these people landing on American soil.
Virtually all Asians are brought up to think that they should depend on government for everything from the crib to the grave. I sure don’t want to see any more people in the United States who believe that! What political party in the USA would they most likely be lured to? I’ll give you three guesses and the first two don’t count.
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.