Posted on 06/06/2007 3:05:08 PM PDT by G. Stolyarov II
Three of the Republican presidential contenders -- Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo -- show promise as individuals who are largely devoted to limited government, individual rights, and sound policy.Each of them has numerous issues where their principled stances will appeal to the conservative voter base of the Republican Party. Each also has some ideas which I find flawed. To educate voters and lead to the most informed possible choices, here is an analysis of some of these three candidates' positions.
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
On Gun Control:
”I fully and completely support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The failure of the ACLU to defend this right, and of federal courts to make the second amendment binding on the states, as they have made the first amendment and most others, testifies to their intellectual hypocrisy.”
-Tom Tancredo
Click for more on Tancredo on the issues.
FREEPMAIL ME TO BE ADDED TO THIS TANCREDO ’08 PING LIST
Duncan Hunter is the third limited government, conservative who should have been included over Huckabee, IMO.
And probably Ron Paul should have been left out. His unwillingness to take the fight to an enemy who wants us dead simply for being infidels is not the leadership we need today.
Personally I like Hunter but think Tancredo should head Homeland Security. The department might actually live up to it’s name.
Audio: John Gibson goes thermonuclear on Truthers (and Ron Paul supporters) arrested at GOP debate
http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1481761327/E20070606192831/
Your analysis of Islamic terrorism is flawed. If they hated us simply for being infidels, they would be attacking every western nation in the world. If we stop to look at why the have attacked us, then UK, then Spain, you can see plainly that it’s based on not just being infidels, but infidels who interfere in foreign affairs of other countries in the Islamic world. The attacks on the WTC-1993, African embassies, USS Cole, WTC-911, Pentagon-911... it’s a pattern that goes back to our Iranian hostages and earlier.
Your understanding of current events and history is horribly, terribly incorrect.
Our third president fought the United States' first war on Islamic terror.
The Muslims have been attacking infidels since Mohammed was big enough to pick up a sword.
I'm really surpised you've never heard of the Crusades.
The Islamic bloodlust well predates American intervention in foreign affairs. Just ask the knights templar. ... Oh, wait, can't ask them - their heads were chopped off.
The leaders were then rounded up and taken to Saladin's camp. The Moslem leader had erected a tent for this special purpose. The common soldiers were sold into slavery. It is said that one Saracen had so many slaves he was willing to trade one for a pair of shoes. As for the Templars, Saladin spared none except for their Grand Master, Gerard de Ridefort. Each Templar and Hospitaller was forced to his knees while Moslem soldiers beheaded them. None complained and each met his death with utter silence and humility, for such was the way of the order. Many other soldiers wishing death rather than a life of slavery in the service of infidels rushed forth claiming to be Templars.
I assure you, even the most glancing look at history will prove to you that the Moslems have been attacking non-believers since the cult was established.
OK, I didn’t think I needed to go back as far as the Barbary pirates. What happened between Jefferson and Madison’s Barbary Wars and the next bit of Islamic terrorism? I ask not in an accusatory tone, but because I simply don’t have that information off the top of my head. If you could provide some links so I could read up, it would be appreciated.
On the one hand, I agree with you 100%: Islam is a cult of death that wants to raise its flag above the capital of every nation on earth. They will continue even with the knowledge that this may never happen for thousands of years. On the other hand, I think there’s a lot we can do to reduce our chances of being attacked, and I’m not sure that we should be involved in foreign intervention to the degree that we are now.
Best regards,
The Brits bore the brunt of Islamic terrorism in the 19th century.
The argument can be made that they were "there" because of their imperialism and expansion of the British Empire, but during the 19th Century they frequently found themselves fighting the Islamic hordes.
In the early 20th Century, Islamic nations aligned with the Germans in WWI (remember Gallipoli).
And of course in WWII the Moslems were all about killing Jews with the Nazis.
Prior to Stephen Decatur and William Eaton kicking Islamic tail in Tripoli, the Barbary Pirates for literally 100s of years were a thorn in the side of every western nation that attempted to trade in the Med.
I've never been a student of Islamic history, but I read Western history constantly. The amazing thing is, no matter what time period I'm reading from, there's some blakety-blank Muslim capturing or killing Westerners.
It was shocking to me to learn that during the time period of roughly the 1400s and 1500s, it was common in England that Muslims would raid seaside towns and capture slaves and kill and rape and all the other barbaric activity we would associate with them.
I don't mean to be condescending, and I'm sorry if my initial post was rude.
I do have sympathy for Paul's ideas, but I think in the modern world they are unrealistic. The Muslims are actively attempting to take over the world through a variety of means that extend beyond just terror.
By the end of the year, Mohammed will be the second most popular name in the UK.
Here’s a link to an article that talks about Islamic expansionism into the West going back to the first Crusades.
I dispute some of the information, such as this: “1683 is an important year because after that the Muslim Empire had no further military successes over the West.”
That would be incorrect. The Muslim Empire had no further military successes “in” the West, perhaps, but there’s a bunch of dead British in the Khyber Pass and around the Nile who would tell you the Muslims had victories beyond 1683.
Nevertheless, the article does give some good information.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/11/primer_on_islamic_imperialism.html
Just doing a quick search to find some links for you, there are many articles that attempt to portray modern American policy with 19th Century British policy. It’s a flawed argument, IMO, but the Islamists might not see it the same way I do. ;-)
The biggest flaw in the argument, though, is how long Islam has been spreading itself by the sword. One of the places to look to see this is in Africa.
When people argue that Christianity has done the same - spreading itself by the sword - I also see a flawed argument. Certainly Christian Kings and Prime Ministers and Presidents have extended their territorial possessions by the sword, but Christianity itself, was largely spread through non-violent monks and missionaries who prayed, helped and often died beside the people they were attempting to convert. Very few monks ever took the attitude that people should “convert or die.”
The violent spread of Christianity was for the sake of man, not for the sake of God or Jesus. The violent spread of Islam, however, is for the sake of Allah.
“On a moonlit June night in 1631, the inhabitants of the coastal village of Baltimore in County Cork, southwestern Ireland, were asleep, unaware that by daybreak their lives would be changed forever. A small flotilla of boats had sailed into the bay unnoticed. These boats, called xebec by their crews, had sailed from Sale in Morocco. They bore 230 musketeers, Muslims to a man, and they had come looking for slaves to sell in Algiers. They had no mercy for any of the town’s inhabitants as they burst into homes, setting the crofts alight. When one villager, Thomas Curlew tried to resist, he was hacked to death, and his wife was carried off. All of the elderly villagers were murdered, and by morning, the Barbary corsairs sailed off, carrying with them 130 men, women and children.”
Here’s another link. I was startled when I clicked on it and it came up as FreeRepublic! LOL. I wasn’t on the thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1812848/posts
thanks, I’ll check this out and get back to you guys...
Thank you for sharing this.
No mention of Huckabee’s nanny-state smoking ban, I see.
Remind me again, where were the Crusades?
Your understanding of current events and history is horribly, terribly incorrect.
Frankly I'm really suprised someone with a grasp of history such as yourself believes some of the nonsensical reasoning the administration has given. And I congratulate you on providing examples. It's refreshing to see support for an argument.
They don't hate us for our freedoms (well they may but not enough to attack us), they hate us because we're over there. Same with the British, or the French. Or was the Battle of the Pyramids really over whether Napoleon's statue to himself should have been 20 or 30 feet tall? Although I'll grant you the French incursion may not be completely viable (as to what would have happened to the French) since Nelson's attack a little over a week later
I am
G. Stolyarov II
Since Ron Paul is not a "9/11 Truther", it is just the idiot wind flapping through Gibson's teeth.
Nice try on the smear by association tactic though.
A devastating critique if it were true. But since it isn't your statement has all the impact of a beer fart in a whirlwind.
L
It is high time we stripped off the makeup, and called these people what they are. They are national neo-socialists, otherwise known as fascists. I myself like the appellative "pseudocon." It is nothing but government socialism in the ideas of big business. Big government and big business is okay as long as "conservatives" run it. They are the bag men for large corporations. They talk "capitalism," but in reality they are advocates of mercantilism, which is a far far different thing What we have in these pseudo conservatives is a bunch of liberal statists, who attempt to rescue their socialist records by being militarists, as well. They are NOT conservatives, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. These new "pseudocons" will mouth traditionalist rhetoric, but they continue to expand federal power, limit our freedoms and liberties, accept as normal the perversions that go on in our society, and hide behind the "terrorist threat" to suck us deeper and deeper into a worldwide military empire. George Bush is at the top of my list on this one and there is no difference between him and Romney, Guiliani, and McCain. They are nothing but pseudocons. These three others (and Duncan Hunter) are all good, but they have some weak spots. Don't kid yourself about Duncan Hunter. He may not be a pseudocon, but he is a PROFLIGATE spender. Mike Huckabee is a sincere evangelical, but he believes in using the state's power to enforce evangelically derived values on personal matters. Tom Tancredo is pretty much a one trick pony (immigration). Ron Paul is not exactly toeing the line on the Iraq war. However, each of these men at least give some semblance of respect for the idea that we are ruled by LAW. That idea should be first and foremost. Otherwise, we just swap one form of fascism for another.
I no longer believe we have to vote for false conservatives as the "lesser of two evils" because I don't see a damn bit of difference between the two. The absolute hysteria with which a statesman like Ron Paul is attacked (whether you agree with his stand on the Iraq war or not) is simply evidence that the pseudocons are firmly ensconced in the "conservative" movement. The pseudocons can screech and rant, but they are simply false prophets. Underneath, they are simply socialist fascists, nothing more. I like Fred Thompson as well, but he ain't in the race yet. People who are PRINCIPLED like them need our support, and the pseudocons should, frankly, be spurned.
I have had it with the pseudocons, who gave us 8 years of W. I will "throw my vote away" on an independent or third-party candidate rather than vote "evil" or "evil light."
Maybe we can rescue the word "conservative" and restore it to mean something more than a mercantilist, militarist, socialist statist. Otherwise, when asked if I am a "conservative" I will have to start answering "hell no, and I am proud of it."
June 7
Bush Pick for War Adviser Says Consider Withdrawal
Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, a skeptic of the troop increase in Iraq and President George W. Bush's choice to oversee the war, said withdrawing troops may pressure the Iraqi government to make needed changes.
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.