Posted on 07/19/2009 9:32:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
What to make of Ron Paul? The word erratic comes to mind. On domestic spending, he is a righteous guardian of small government, while on foreign affairs he is a dangerous isolationist who believes the world will leave us alone if we just tend to our own knitting. And as far as Sarah Palin and her supporters go, he is a space cadet, apparently.
An interview with Politico published today contains this startling assertion from Paul:
'As for soon-to-be departing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Paul dismisses her supporters as "more establishment, conventional Country-Club type of Republicans."'
This is odd indeed, detached from reality as it is. Sarah Palin is about as far from a country club Republican as one can find. And Texas sources indicate:
And if you were to check the membership rolls of the Lake Jackson Country Club here in Texas, I'd bet real money that you would find the names of Ron Paul and his wife Carol listed as lifetime members.
The assertion of The Pauls belonging to this country club is supported by other bloggers as well. Representative Paul (also an OB/GYN, by the way) should address the question of his alleged country club membership, if he is going to throw around this label.
Could it be that Ron Paul is jealous of Sarah Palin's popular support?
” Remember that Huckleberry grew up in Hope, Arkansas and followed in the footsteps of The Bent One! Has anyone ever heard Huckleberry say Anything negative about the Clintoons? Also, how does a selfavowed Minister ever qualify as a future Commander-in-Chief?”
Huck seem like a nice guy, but I was surprised at how he/other leaders are so enamored with the Safeway cost containment plan. I.E. Attach consequences to behaviors, reward positive steps towards health in their company health plans.
He should look around at many of the fortune 50 companies and realize they have been doing this for years , as they provide HC to their employees and have it managed by Blue Cross etc.
This showed me he was very shallow on an important issue to the day, and not ready for prime time.
Barry O on the other hand just goes for the pie in the sky, and doesn’t ever reveal he knows nothing.
He’s the ultimate snake oil salesman wrapped up in diversity and a nice smile............
You know he is incompetent, but fools enough people to get by.
” I have the same feelings about the wars. I went to Iraq, and lost 3 of my very close friends. ‘
Thanks for your service from a 3rd generation vet.
Grandad WW1 Europe - Dad WW 2 Normandy vet - Me Vietnam
We all gladly served to preserve our/others right to freedom
I like Paul, but that was a dumb thing for him to say. The reality is that the “country club Republicans” rallied around Palin, for the same reason that many R’s are rallying around Paul (and his Tea Parties), because they have grass roots support. So it looks like Palin has “ccR” supporters when in fact what she has are snakes in the grass who will turn on her in an instant, just as all those “conservatives” here turned on Paul after Iraq.
You must be projecting your realpolitik on everything.
I supported Romney in the 2008 primary season as the candidate I thought had the best combination of factors, including electability. That doesn't mean I can't have an independent thought about Palin. And it definitely doesn't mean that every thing I say or do is done to advance Romney's cause! Paranoia abounds here.
The Rasmussen 2012 poll Drudge references today shows that Palin is not pulling enough support to beat Obama (loses 48% to 42%). Romney ties Obama at 45%.
If you really MUST continue to defend the Galveston looneytune and his, well yes, rank isolationism, foreign and military policy of cowardice, career of rank dishonesty, pork barreling earmark policies, two-faced posing as a pro-lifer while denying that the feds have any jurisdiction while filing pro-life bills to cover his backside, then consider that the constitution which the paleobirdbrains continually misuse and fail to understand, places treaties on a par with the constitution as legal authority as the highest "law of the land." The SCOTUS approved that provision in a migratory bird treaty case in the 1930s ruling the the 2nd Amendment was not superior authority to the treaty with Canada and that the treaty as the later enactment took precedence. The UN Treaty: One more treasure trove for leftists and foreign policy surrender artists like El Ron to dig around in to destroy our nation. Ohhhh, they are soooooo sensitive and not at all violent, just like Dr. Spock or Abbie Hoffman or actual college professors or professional protesters or other Marxists and domestiCong traitors. The UN treaty purports to "outlaw war." If outlawing war is the highest law of the land, it is time to ignore such idiocy since the only alternative is diployak leading to lying back and enjoying the conquest of our nation by its enemies.
You and the other twelve paleos can get together and drown your sorrows over the continued existence of our country and you will really wail and kvetch and moan when it is again governed by Americans with an aggressive attitude in military advance of our society and its interests. As you join in the radical left vocabulary of calling normal pro-military Americans "neo-conservatives", a term that applies to a dozen or so northeastern and mostly NYC formerly socialist intellectuals. Llewellyn Rockwell is no conservative nor is lavender queen Justin(e) Raimondo nor is the rest of the anti-American pseudo-"conservative" crowd known inaccurately as paleo-conservatives since they are certainly paleo and not at all recognizably or consistently conservative.
If you don't like the wars that Congress has approved, authorized, funded and, in effect, declared, then don't volunteer. The military drafts no one. To the extent that terms of service were involuntarily extended by the Pentagon during the last administration, that is an abuse that should be legislatively eliminated as was the active draft more than thirty years ago. When wars are fought only by those who volunteer to fight them and the spineless and cowardly politicians have no ability to force military service, our wars will also have the highest validation of all, the approval of the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who fight those wars.
As to FREE TRADE, I agree with Pat Buchanan on that one. Dump the treaties, tariff the imports, restore an America with actual well-paying jobs in manufacturing. The world traders be, ummm, darned.
What are paleosurrenderartists doing on a conservative website? I seem to remember that JimRob definitively answered the Ron Paul/Paulistinian question last year.
Congress can authorize war. Congress can approve war. Congress can fund war. Congress can declare war (as it does nowadays in the instance of doing the authorizing, approving and funding of a war) even when we are party to the sovereignty-sapping UN. There is nothing in the constitution about wars having to be defensive. I have asked you to show any provision connecting the word "defensive" to the word "war." You have understandably failed to show that connection in the constitutional text because it does not exist. You are, ummm, twisting the constitution to mean what you want it to mean, just as paleoPaulie does regularly At least, the leftist idjits who think welfare constitutional can point to actual words in the preamble: "general welfare" and wefare is indeed unconstitutional despite the words. Nothing therein connects "defensive to "war." You don't even have the barest argument in the text. You make it up as you go along. If we may no longer wage war constitutionally, then we are no longer a nation and your fussiness is irrelevant since the constitution is therefore already fried and dead. Conservatives will proceed on the opposite assumption and wage wars, especially when they are approved by Congress, authorized by Congress and funded by Congress.
And once again, wars started by the US (depending on the definition of start) may offend giveacrap libertoonian resistance to morality but they most certainly do not violate the constitution, as your silence or a reading of the text will easily demonstrate.
Don't like wars started by the US? Don't agree with WMDs as a pretext? Think somehow there must be a pretext approved by you? Don't think that Saddam ought to have been deposed by American force (or Tojo or Hitler before him)???? BTW, did Hitler attack the US? I'm glad we vanquished him anyhow, aren't you? If any of these things bother you, there is no constitutional basis for your objections. There is a constitutional remedy. Run for Congress in a district gullible enough to believe your nonsense: Berserkeley? Greenwich Village? Galveston suburbs? Wherever. Get elected and make as much of a fool of yourself as Ron Paul does posing falsely as a "constitutionalist" or as a "conservative." Then there will be three paleowhatevers braying in the wind, including also Weepy Walter Jones of North Carolina. Since you are fond of communist anti-American rhetoric, don't forget to reference "interfering with the internal affairs of other nations" as an excuse for sitting still for continued development of tyranny (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, until recently Honduras, etc.).
Ronald Reagan was a conservative. You clearly are not.
It depends on what the expansions of executive power are or were. I certainly don't want wars to be run by committees of Pelosi, Murtha, Weepy Walter Jones, El Ron Paulie, Dennis Cuckoocinich, et al. Congress authorizes, approves and funds the war generally. The POTUS is Commander in in Chief and carries out the war. It was in all our constitutions. God forbid that we have wars run by the current moron in the White House or those around him. No further wars until 2012 and may our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan survive being ruled by Obama. Israel will have to wear the pants in the west for now.
Don't like Government Motors, socialized Obamacare, higher taxes, abortion on demand with each and every abortion funded by taxpayers, etc., etc.??? Then stop with the libertoonian delusions and nutcase political programs that this nation will NEVER approve, join a coalition of folks (none of whom get everything they ant but all of whom get some of the things they want) capable of taking the White House. They may be led by the brilliantly named Caribou Barbie or by others. The coalition is based on guns, God, guts, pro-life, pro-marriage, low taxes, bleeding the regulatory aspect of the state, moving more authority to the states and local government consistent with genuine liberty and not on imagined rights of marriage for Adam and Bruce or of babykilling. There are economic issues on which I would disagree with mainstream conservatism and immigration issues as well, but if I get much of what I want, I'll settle and seek more when appropriate. It is politics for grownups not politics by eccentricity and temper tantrum.
I don't care what your badges are any more than I cared about McGovern's badges as a bomber pilot in WWII. Conservatism (and patriotism for that matter) is about policy and not about credentialism, relevant or not. If you had the same badges and hallucinated that Obamamessiah a wonderful and wise POTUS, your badges would not convince me.
When Paul and the Paulistinians stabbed our own country in the back, we stabbed them. Nothing wrong there. Unless and until Paul grovels in apology before conservatives, patriots and Americans as he wants our country to grovel before its enemies, then he and anyone like him can go to where God does not dwell. It won’t solve all of his many eccentricities and evils but at least he might qualify to be heard. Ron Paul is not fit to wash Caribou Barbie’s underwear.
Good one. Finally, a picture of the true (fake) Republican.
I don’t recall Paul EVER saying a word about Bob Taft-the biggest RHINO and example of a country club Repub that OheilO has ever seen (worst gov here ever, regardless of party, IMO). Strange, that. OR sweaty Betty Montgomery, or any number of others here that would fill the bill. That group of assclowns has destroyed the party here for at least a decade.
You keep hanging on to the neo-con ideology that America rejected in 2008, and watch the party of ideas go further into irrelevance.
Ron Paul’s policy positions are based on the Constitution and how the founders intended the Constitution to be interpreted, not how it has been mis-interpreted by BOTH sides.
Also, I will not bring up my service record if you will not use the term “real Americans” in your argument.
Try this.
When debating, utilize ideas instead of insults (implied or otherwise).
Ditto.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
Paulies positions are based on his delusions, bad reading of history and perhaps, if he thinks he is applying the founders' intentions, he is channeling the dead. Are you?
If you rejected what you call "neo-con" ideology in 2008, I guess you are one of those responsible for the present peace creep administration whose foreign policy and paleoPaulie's are soooooo similar.
As I posted earlier, I am no more persuaded as to your service record than I would be by McGovern's. Bring it up if you like or not if you don't like. I don't really care. By being antiwar, you, like McGoo, diminish the respect that others might have for your service, as such. In any event, it is not a persuader in argument.
Aircraft carriers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, tanks, the air force, the veteran's department, fully automatic rifles, steamships, airplanes, space exploration, light bulbs, computers, typewriters, automobiles, indoor plumbing, central heating, airconditioning, modern ventilation methods, LP gas, natural gas, gasoline, penicillin, antibiotics generally, the internet, telephones (hard wired), telephones (cellular), television, satellites, and a wide variety of other modern means and products are nowhere in the constitution and they made amendment too cumbersome to be accomplished by Congressional supermajorities and 38 states to ratify while the Pentagon itself and the WTC are attacked.
We are a nation not a museum. Strictly speaking, the Articles of Confederation were not legally replaced by the constitution when 9 states ratified. The Articles required unanimity. I think that suggests that the founders were not quite so literalist as their modern day "supporters" tend to hallucinate. Rhode Island ratified about 4 years after the constitution was deemed enacted. See any insults in there or just arguments?
Back to original mode. If Ron Paul states his constitutional delusions, why should anyone care? What does he know? I would probably agree with numbers of his positions or his actual performance or (in very rare occasions) both. It does not matter. On war, military, foreign policy, and many social issues, he is a moonbat or, as some prefer, batsh*t crazy. The sooner that he and Weepy Walter Jones retire the better and we don't need his kid named Rand (no less) in public life either, much less in the US Senate.
If you don't like war, don't re-enlist. If you don't like your friends going to war, that is their business and none of yours.
I'll be back tonight after a meeting.
I’ll ask you again - were you in the military? If so, what was your MOS? You should at least be able to answer this question - to what oath do members of the military swear? Tell me, would you be willing to give your life to have Saddam removed from power? I doubt it. You talk pretty tough. Most of my friends who were on the front lines don’t act so proud. Some of the guys in my outfit will never come home. Was it worth any one of their lives to go to war for something we weren’t sure of? No. And I’ll bet you wouldn’t give your life for something you weren’t sure of either.
You talk like a pure stalinist. I’m not fond of communist anything, but you are. Expansionist, government force. That’s the definition of stalinism. I love America. You love the American government.
I get it. Only Palin cheerleaders are independent thinkers.
I stand by everything I’ve posted. In my opinion Palin lacks a lot of substance and I’ll support Romney or almost any other potential primary candidate over her.
The only reason Palin is as strong a candidate as she is (I think inherently weak because she has very little intellectual depth), is the novelty of McCain choosing her as a VP candidate. Where would she be if that hadn’t of happened?
Hmmmm and Romney is sooooooooo smart that only a week ago he gave his Romneycare an A+.... I’ll take the good ole common sense of a Sarah Palin over the Romney-type of intellectual any day of the week.
FreeReign, you are a good debater (if that’s a word). Though I disagree with your foreign policy view, I can tell you think things through before reacting. I’ll take it as a compliment that I’m a true Libertarian, though LOL! and I have no doubt that we’d agree on more than we’d disagree.
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.