Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 02/12/2011 6:18:30 PM PST by kristinn
Which side was Dr. Paul on then?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Almost no one is officially running yet. Paul has stated that he is seriously considering running.
I’m not saying anything bad about the man’s policies or service to the country.
I’m saying he’s too old.
And conservatives attacked Dick Cheney for his support for gay marriage.
“Have any of the people posting ever sat across the table and talked to the Congressman representing your district? I have. It was Ron Paul. I may not agree with him on all his positions but as a Congressman representing our district he came by and met with those in the district in person. More than once. **And drove the car himself.** When was the last time your representative talked to you DIRECTLY across the table at a restaurant.”
He’s too old to be driving too.
“Which side was Dr. Paul on then?”
Neither. He was too old for combat.
Young America's Foundation owns the Reagan Ranch.This article is about Young Americans for Freedom. Is this a different group?
I misunderstood. I thought they were similar...
Been fun joshing with you. I’ve going to go hit a couple of bars. I catch the scent of women in the air.
Later.
Let me guess...you're too young to remember that Dr. Paul's positions are the classic Republican ones, and too "lazy" to look that up yourself, eh?
How about some fun "trivia"...what party was conservative Senator Robert Taft, the leading proponent of the views held by Dr. Paul's (pro-American, non-interventionism)? Here's a hint..."Mr. Republican" was his nickname.
Before throwing stones and attacking a good fellow FReeper, perhaps you ought to drag your ignorant progressive RINO (definitely not conservative Republican if you oppose the classic Republican policy of non-interventionism and push to "progress" to blowing lots of taxpayer money on overseas adventures) butt to a library or here.
That being said, I do accept that the Republican party has gotten rather liberal and it is now acceptable to be an interventionist in the new, progressive Republican Party.
I wonder, though, are you just upset that Dr. Paul was proven right in expressing his concern about giving so much military hardware and technology to Egypt?
Paul's refusal to support our nation’s military and national security interests border on treason, aside from his failure to uphold his oath to the United States Constitution and defend our country and citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic,”
I will never forget hearing his treasonous words ringing across the grounds of the Washington Monument at the National TEA Party on April 15, 2010.
Good for YAF! It is good to hear there are some willing to stand up for what is right!
To which you replied, "Those libertarians who sought to appease the USSR and Communist China and disarm America while screaming with pot-filled lungs about the welfare-warfare state.
Oh, you mean like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, who both sat down with the communists and attempted to negotiate an end to the Cold War? But then they weren't known pot users, so maybe that image doesn't fit.
Look, I took my share of insults from hippies and anti-Vietnam War types while working for Goldwater and Reagan. They were despicable human beings to put it kindly.
Many of these student radicals stayed on in the universities they caused trouble at to become TA's and later professors. It was a strategic error on the part of conservatives to remain on the wrong side of history even when Vietnam was lost, as the next two generations of college kids came under the influence of successively more radical and anti-freedom academics.
YAF, for all its valiant efforts in the early days, really missed the boat in the late 60s by not countering the hippies and teach-in radicals with . . guess what? . . a freedom-oriented message that would dovetail with what Ronald Reagan would be promoting just a few years later.
There is a ton of difference between libertarians and radical socialist/communist leftwingers, and you know it. Do not confuse an anti-war sentiment with leftism, as they are not the same. (And please refrain from the bong jokes, as even the sainted WFB, Jr. was in favor of legalizing pot. Now, even Tom Tancredo is on the legalization bandwagon. I am very sure he's not a user, and neither am I.)
Young Americans for Freedom is affiliated with them, handling partisan activities. As such, it is 501(c)(4), and therefore contributions to them are not tax-deductible.
And it's a great commentary on the sad state of conservative affairs that they are considered by some to be unknown or that they are against Ron Paul's views, which are right in line with the founding of the organizations.
I think Ron/Rand Paul are getting the economics right, but this lunatic anti-war mantra they’re empowering and promoting is very dangerous.
Without national security and military strength, as well as engagement, no one will have economic or personal freedom. In addition, the injection of Gay Rights is a non-starter and will splinter the Republican Party. I do not endorse special rights for sexual preferences.
You go down that road and I see no problem with polygamy, since there is an historical basis for that with the Mormons. Where do you draw the line if you start recognizing special rights based on sexual preference...
If there’s so much difference, why is it all you here the overwhelming majority of libertarians harp on is free love and free dope? Because that’s what they care about. They so high and screwed up that everything else is a paranoid delusion, hence the fixation on the conspiracies and the anti-Semitic rantings by Ron Paul and is attraction for the radical anti-war nuts.
I mean, these nuts regularly worship at the altar of the lunatic fringe leftist mantra that drives whack-jobs Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink, for goodness sake!
Is that what we want in the GOP? Not I.
Although Taft fully supported the American war effort after Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war on Japan by the U.S. congress on December 8, 1941
That represents a HUGE difference between Senator Taft and that pos truther, Paul!
Got a photo of paleoPaulie smooching the Koran or smooching Ahmanutjob of Iran??? Does it bother you that he refuses to DO anything to reduce abortion or that he supports military fudgepacking???
You've got that right, Gondring.
But what can you expect when the number of people calling themselves "conservative" is so much greater than it was 40-50 years ago. The fringe has been pushed toward the middle and there's much less unanimity on policy (or for that matter, principles) than existed when YAF was founded.
An even more dramatic shift occurred within ISI, once known as the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists. It started out as an academic version of YAF, stressing scholarship in matters of importance to understanding the relationship we have with our government. One of ISI's founders, besides WFB, was Frank Chodorov who would place high on the pantheon of libertarian/classical liberal writers.
These days, ISI might as well be a collegiate adjunct of the Heritage Foundation.
I have never once heard Ron Paul advocate weak national security or military strength. As for engagement, he has quite clearly stated that we should remain engaged, not isolated. (Please don't tell us that you don't know the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.)
I've never been a part of Ron Paul's campaigns and I can't speak for him, but my understanding is that he believes in a strong defense, just not foreign adventurism and giving American tax dollars and blood for others' benefit.
In addition, the injection of Gay Rights is a non-starter and will splinter the Republican Party. I do not endorse special rights for sexual preferences.
Agreed. There's absolutely no reason a secular government should be involved in a religious sacrament. The government shouldn't provide special rights for sexual preference.
You go down that road and I see no problem with polygamy, since there is an historical basis for that with the Mormons.
The history of Mormon polygamy includes breaking of prior arrangements (taking one man's wife to give her to another). Please be sure you're not conflating those types of problems with how such things as line marriages might be arranged (e.g., see The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, by Robert A. Heinlein). Again, the religious aspect is religious. If there's a civil arrangement made with the secular government, then breaks in the arrangement would be violations of legal contract and the participants would be protected.
Where do you draw the line if you start recognizing special rights based on sexual preference...
Exactly.
I know that my positions are more conservative and classic Republican than many FReepers, but I submit that I am more in line with American history than others are.
"That intervention is not now, never was, and never will be a set policy of the United States is one of the most important facts President-elect Hoover has made clear." --The New York Times, 1928
I forget...was Hoover a Republican or Democrat?
In a completely different vein, how many POTUS elections has paleoPaulie, the two-faced porkmeister of Galveston won? Or even primaries for POTUS? That's right. None! Ya gotta think these things through.
How many elections had the paleosurrenderman won even for Congress at Marks' age? Again, none. YAF should never have allowed Paulie on the Advisory Board to begin with. Expunging him from the Advisory Board: Better late than never.
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.