Posted on 09/16/2007 6:05:18 AM PDT by George W. Bush
Isolationism? Paul is a Non-Interventionist; he still advocates international trade and diplomacy. That's a far cry from being an isolationist.
Frankly, I think some good old-fashioned border security would help. It's silly to be all gung-ho about takin' it to Ali in Iraq, and at the same time letting every Tomas, Ricardo, and Geraldo walk over the border unmolested. Because you know if those guys can get in, so can Ali's cousin Fouad.
I would agree, were it not for the concerted anti-Paul propaganda campaign that is ongoing here on FR. That skews the numbers. There is no analogous campaign in the media at large.
When you address the baby killing, nanny state, tax and spend, war mongering globalists calling themselves Republicans and ruining the GOP, I will worry about a few smelly hippies at a peace rally supporting Ron Paul.
Get your priorities straight.
Bump!
Responding to "baby killers" and "war mongering globalists" would only lower myself to the same kook and suicidal paranoia that is the standard state of mind of the Paulistinian.
So the Ron Paul movement is about Conservatives who are discontent with the GOP right?
Wrong!!!
Here is another gem from one of your fellow Paulistinians
Barry to Elisabeth: Your "View" is Dangerous
Actual post from a Ron Paul Supporter
Barry go back on and promote Ron Paul!
Barry, since you support Paul, please go on TV somewhere and talk about him!
Posted at 1:32PM on Sep 17th 2007 by Jacob Weishaupt
Conservative discontent my @ss, Ron Paul supporters pee on your leg and tell you that it is raining.
Ron Paul 08' = Suicide
What am I supposed to glean from the link you sent me to? Could you just spell it out in plain English? thanks.
"...we need to be concerned for a strong defense."
I agree but that would have to include sealing the border against those who would turn the Southwest US into Aztlan, la raza and their ilk. That we aren't tells me something strange is going on.
"Its statements like that make RP supporters seem nuts (to put it bluntly)."
OK that was pretty mild. But that added to all the other invocations of nuts by many others, and I thought I should address the name calling. I was addressing you only partially but expecting others who name call a bit too much to see that too.
We just won't agree on the Paul attitude to 911. No need to push it further.
Thanks for the good exchange.
How about presuming to instruct the key members of the Libertarian Party on what it means to be a Libertarian? Don't think that's wacky?
The fact that he worked for Ron Paul for so long? If thats the case then I agree
Nice contradiction. .
but that doesnt mean hes wrong when he relates what happened when the vote for force in afghanistan was up.
Eric Dondero takes credit for almost anything that anybody else did. It is an observed behavior, and has been consistent throughout his public life. Funny that other staffers don't seem to agree with Dondero.
Atleast he was sane enough to stop working for a anti-war conspiracy theorist, Ill give him that.
Actually he was fired.
O that is such BS.
It is a documented fact. You really need to keep up.
Him being more worried about a terrorist in guantanamo not being comfy enough or a cell member not having his phone call listened to while hes calling his buddies in pakistan than the potential for millions of american deaths means hes serious about the war on terror? Im not buying it, and no one else here does either.
Actually lots of people here are worried about it, and for good reason.
And a lot of people fault bush for not taking care of illegal immigration and the border. Mostly its because the GOP doesnt want to scare away hispanic voters (my guess).
No wonder the Republicans are called "the stupid party"...Hello, Sparky, those people all vote Democrat.
But not one of the hijackers who attacked us on 9/11 was here illegally. They all had visas.
Which proves that you don't have the slightest idea of what you speak. The visas were long expired. They should have never been in the country.
Most of them were also saudi arabian, but that in itself doesnt give us leverage to attack Saudi Arabia.
Now who is being soft on terrorism?
Facts are that the Madrassas are funded with Saudi Money, as are many terrorist organisations at present.
And bringing up Saudi Arabia as if to say Ron Paul WOULD deal decisively with them is silly. Ron Paul supports an isolationist foreign policy.
You don't have the slightest friggin clue of what isolationism means, do you?
In a nutshell, it means: We'll leave you alone, you leave us alone. If you mess with us, then you get hurt...bad.
Got it?
Buy a clue.
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.