Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul: A Conservative Study in Contrasts
The Politico ^ | April 18, 2007 | Josh Kraushaar

Posted on 04/19/2007 7:22:28 PM PDT by cva66snipe

Excerpt: The candidate is one of the most outspoken defenders of gun rights in Congress and has never voted for a bill restricting gun ownership. He thinks this week's tragedy at Virginia Tech could have been prevented if the university allowed students and professors to carry concealed weapons. "People are a little more cautious if somebody might have a gun there. A concealed gun carried by a responsible person, that might have ended the problem that they had at Virginia Tech, with one person being killed, or two people being killed," he said. Another signature Paul proposal is support for the elimination of income taxes. His campaign slogan in congressional elections has been "The Taxpayer's Best Friend." "I don't think we need an income tax," Paul said. "I promised my people I would do anything and everything I can to get rid of the income tax, to repeal the 16th Amendment, never vote to raise taxes and always vote to lower taxes. And it's been a popular position."

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2008; electionpresident; elections; loser; nut; paul; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

1 posted on 04/19/2007 7:22:29 PM PDT by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
I wish the other GOP candidates would think more like Ron Paul and less like the DEMs.
2 posted on 04/19/2007 7:26:08 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

This April 19th, (Waco anniversary) remember....the BATF is the Armed Forces of Gun Control!!!


3 posted on 04/19/2007 7:27:06 PM PDT by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
"People are a little more cautious if somebody might have a gun there."

I'm not sure that a suicidal nut job like Cho would have been more cautious if the entire campus were armed with cruise missiles.

4 posted on 04/19/2007 7:38:05 PM PDT by nctexan (Top 10 Presidential Reqs. for 2008 - see my homepage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nctexan
I'm not sure that a suicidal nut job like Cho would have been more cautious if the entire campus were armed with cruise missiles.

That wasn't the point though. Cho was crazy a mad man. A bullet or two put in him from a professor or student may have saved many lives. Cho was bent on killing people and himself. Every person that man killed deserved the right to self defense.

5 posted on 04/19/2007 7:47:30 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive
This April 19th, (Waco anniversary) remember....the BATF is the Armed Forces of Gun Control!!!

Nobody should forget Waco. No matter how anyone felt about the cult the whole situation was handled wrong from the very start. Very poor and reckless judgment was used on the part of all law enforcement involved. There was no excuse for what the feds did none. A reserve deputy would have even had more sense than that and arrested him in town.

6 posted on 04/19/2007 7:51:23 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
"That wasn't the point though."

If the quote is accurate, he made two points. The first is the one I questioned... And that was his point.

The second is the one you came back with. Yes, If someone had been sitting in class with a weapon and reacted properly, maybe fewer would have died.

7 posted on 04/19/2007 7:58:52 PM PDT by nctexan (Top 10 Presidential Reqs. for 2008 - see my homepage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

I agree with much of what Paul stands for and would vote for him but I’m afraid THE MONEY SYSTEM makes it virtually impossible for him to win the nomination .


8 posted on 04/19/2007 8:01:26 PM PDT by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nctexan
I see what you mean. In general people would be more cautious but Cho just simply did not care. Nobody can know if under other circumstances he knew there were armed persons in class he would have done it. His goal seemed to be take out as many as possible with what he had. Had a policeman been there it would have likely ended as suicide via cop.
9 posted on 04/19/2007 8:03:54 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Real Republicans, unlike paleoPaulie, want to crush Islamofascism in its Middle Eastern nest rather than cower in their beds at home waiting to be slain like isolationists. PaleoPaulie is on the same wavelength as the Demonrat leftists in resisting the war. On the war, PaleoPaulie= Murtha= Pelosi= Kerry= Ted the Driver= Dennis Cuckoocinich= the rest of the antiAmerican antiwar looneytunes.


10 posted on 04/19/2007 8:11:20 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nctexan

Cho would have been dead and a lot quicker and many of those whom he victimized would not have been shot much less slain.


11 posted on 04/19/2007 8:13:01 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Thank you,

2 positions that any cnadidate MUST support to get my vote............


12 posted on 04/19/2007 8:13:56 PM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Pssst, hey don’t tell anybody but a Letter of Marque could have gotten Saddam a whole lot cheaper and it was Constitutional as well.


13 posted on 04/19/2007 8:19:15 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
I wish the other GOP candidates would think more like Ron Paul and less like the DEMs.

I wish the GOP Congressmen would act more like Ron Paul and less like the Democrats!

14 posted on 04/20/2007 2:03:28 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe; OrthodoxPresbyterian; billbears; TBP

ping


15 posted on 04/20/2007 2:06:26 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe; Gamecock; elkfersupper; dcwusmc; gnarledmaw; Extremely Extreme Extremist; KoRn; ...

GRPPL Ping


16 posted on 04/20/2007 6:28:10 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Real Republicans...

True, but article is talking about Conservatives.

17 posted on 04/20/2007 6:46:35 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sushiman; cva66snipe
I agree with much of what Paul stands for and would vote for him but I’m afraid THE MONEY SYSTEM makes it virtually impossible for him to win the nomination.

Oh, I'll grant that he's a long-shot.

But, you know -- if you do Vote for him... and if enough other folks Vote for him... then the Money System doesn't really matter, eh?

If I can persuade you to vote for Ron Paul in your State's GOP Primary, how much does Ron Paul have to spend on your Vote? (I'm not being paid by the Campaign, or anything)

18 posted on 04/20/2007 6:51:58 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Bump


19 posted on 04/20/2007 6:59:30 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
A reserve deputy would have even had more sense than that and arrested him in town

That was the whole point. It was a show of force by the ATF. They didn't want to arrest him quietly especially since he hadn't done anything wrong.

20 posted on 04/20/2007 7:03:11 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
"..like isolationists."

Where did you hear that term, from the talking heads in the MSM?

I think you did. At least that is where I heard it.

Somehow, that word is being applied to anyone who thinks giving our money away to other countries, and refusing to act as the world's policeman is a bad idea.

21 posted on 04/20/2007 7:03:27 AM PDT by Designer II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Designer II
Somehow, that word is being applied to anyone who thinks giving our money away to other countries, and refusing to act as the world's policeman is a bad idea.

If that's the case, I'll proudly appropriate that word for myself.

I'm an isolationist.

22 posted on 04/20/2007 7:05:03 AM PDT by Wormwood (Future Former Freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood

Perhaps a more neutral term would be “political isolationist.” As an advocate of free trade, I’d happily embrace that term.


23 posted on 04/20/2007 7:50:33 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood
I think I know what you mean. Trade is one thing, intervention is quite another.

Especially intervening in the affairs of another country without a compelling national interest. (Ours, not theirs.)

24 posted on 04/20/2007 9:08:15 AM PDT by Designer II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
But, you know -- if you do Vote for him... and if enough other folks Vote for him... then the Money System doesn't really matter, eh?

Have him win a statewide election, then maybe we'll talk. If he can't get elected Governor or Senator, why does anyone think he's capable of getting elected President?

25 posted on 04/20/2007 9:11:45 AM PDT by kevkrom (A vote for Guiliani is a vote to kill conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
Have him win a statewide election, then maybe we'll talk. If he can't get elected Governor or Senator, why does anyone think he's capable of getting elected President?

Because the Electoral College is not restricted to voting for Senators and Governors.

26 posted on 04/20/2007 9:23:08 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Because the Electoral College is not restricted to voting for Senators and Governors.

I said "capable", not "legally able to". By your standard, I have a chance of winning the election, and I can guarantee you that's not going to happen.

27 posted on 04/20/2007 9:34:11 AM PDT by kevkrom (A vote for Guiliani is a vote to kill conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
I said "capable", not "legally able to". By your standard, I have a chance of winning the election, and I can guarantee you that's not going to happen.

True. Unfortunately, the Best GOP candidates running (Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter in that order) are all United States Congressmen, not Senators or Governors. Whereas the "biggest" GOP Candidate at this time is.... a Liberal ex-Mayor.

As far as "Senators and Governors" (or ex-Governors), you've got McCain and Romney -- neither of which is dependably Conservative; and a gaggle of ex-governors from various states who are polling no better than (and sometimes lower than) Congressman Ron Paul.

Given those choices, I'm supporting the Congressmen -- Ron Paul most of all.

28 posted on 04/20/2007 9:51:27 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Throw Fred Thompson into that mix and you have a solidly conservative former Senator who can effectively communicate his message, and just by announcing will immediately become one of the front-runners.


29 posted on 04/20/2007 9:55:25 AM PDT by kevkrom (A vote for Guiliani is a vote to kill conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
Throw Fred Thompson into that mix and you have a solidly conservative former Senator who can effectively communicate his message, and just by announcing will immediately become one of the front-runners.

Fred Thompson isn't running for the GOP Nomination.
That's not a prediction; just a plain statement of Current Fact.

I'm supporting a Candidate who is running for the GOP Nomination, not one who isn't.

30 posted on 04/20/2007 9:57:47 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

bookmark


31 posted on 04/20/2007 11:32:07 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
True. Unfortunately, the Best GOP candidates running (Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter in that order) are all United States Congressmen, not Senators or Governors. Whereas the "biggest" GOP Candidate at this time is.... a Liberal ex-Mayor.

Sadly, Ron Paul does not the the attention he deserves. He is one of the only elected representatives on the federal level that actually speaks about saving our country, culture, and constitution. The rest of the suits are just money/power hungry bureaucrats.

It saddens me to say.. but Rudy will probably get the GOP nomination and will probably win the next election. We can bet our bottom dollars that we will see more taxes, more gun laws, more bureaucracy created, and more feel good social programs programs created. We can also bet on the ATF funding to be expanded big time. Rudy is a true-blue big city northeast liberal to the highest degree. He is NOT to be trusted.
32 posted on 04/20/2007 12:52:28 PM PDT by BigTom85 (Proud Gun Owner and Member of NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BigTom85
It saddens me to say.. but Rudy will probably get the GOP nomination and will probably win the next election. We can bet our bottom dollars that we will see more taxes, more gun laws, more bureaucracy created, and more feel good social programs programs created.

Oh, if I were a betting man, I'd say that's probably the likely scenario. Giuliani is a seasoned enough politician to chew up a movice like Obama, and Hillary's negatives are so high that she's going to have to fight for every 1% Undecided over and above the 35-40% Democrat Base.

However, as you correctly observe: any Giuliani/Democrat matchup is just a race between two Liberals (quite literally -- Rudy sought and received the endorsement of the Liberal Party of New York). Ergo, as long as we have the opportunity in the Primaries, I'll be working to nominate Anybody But Rudy -- most preferably Ron Paul.

33 posted on 04/20/2007 1:11:46 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
#18

Thanks for shedding some "common sense" on the issue.

Speaking of "common sense", where's Tom Payne when you need him!

34 posted on 04/20/2007 1:35:46 PM PDT by Verax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

You’re forgetting the war. Everybody seems to be. Rudy is as much a backer of the failing surge as McCain. If it continues to go south, amd Rudy refuses to back down, the Democrat will benefit. This applies to any pro-surge candidate.


35 posted on 04/20/2007 1:41:34 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
You’re forgetting the war. Everybody seems to be. Rudy is as much a backer of the failing surge as McCain. If it continues to go south, amd Rudy refuses to back down, the Democrat will benefit. This applies to any pro-surge candidate.

That's a good point.

36 posted on 04/20/2007 1:52:35 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
I wish the other GOP candidates would think more like Ron Paul and less like the DEMs.
*******************************************************************************************************************
You mean you want the other Republicans to advocate the cut and run cowardly policy of Ron Paul? I sure do not. Why is he and his democrat allies so insistent that the terrorists win in Iraq?
37 posted on 04/20/2007 2:00:14 PM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; Austin Willard Wright; cva66snipe; traviskicks; Verax
YouTube - Ron Paul on Fox clip 4-20-0
38 posted on 04/20/2007 2:48:23 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

7


39 posted on 04/20/2007 2:50:47 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: John D
You mean you want the other Republicans to advocate the cut and run cowardly policy of Ron Paul? I sure do not.

Conservatives sensibly advocated "cut and run" on LBJ's starry-eyed War on Poverty back in the 1960s. They knew that victory in such an enterprise was hopelessly utopian, produced unintended consquences, and was a waste of scare resources. Now, using the same logic, Paul calls for disengagement from Bush's utopian crusade to "spread democracy" in Iraq. In both cases, the "cut and run" (to use your words) approach rested on the pragmatic principle of recognizing cold, hard reality.

40 posted on 04/20/2007 3:20:49 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: John D
You mean you want the other Republicans to advocate the cut and run cowardly policy of Ron Paul? I sure do not. Why is he and his democrat allies so insistent that the terrorists win in Iraq?

OK Number one. From night one GW Bush took our troops to Iraq for the purpose NATION BUILDING. Anyone with two functional brain cells could see it coming when such things as utilities, roads, bridges, and communications were spared. Those were take out first night items on any battle field.

Second Bush is a liar or a hypocrite on nation building take your pick. Why? Because he condemned Clinton/Gore for nation building in the second 2000 debates in Boston. Look it up Bush said he was against nation building.

In his own words.MODERATOR: Sure, absolutely, sure. Somalia.
BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.

Third, you do not go to war to make friends with the enemy nation you go there to destroy them.

Fourth, our Constitution requires a formal Declaration of War that Bush and his GOP and DEM shills ignored. An authorization of force is not a declaration of war. As such the U.S. Congress is not by any means committed to this war as it can plainly be seen. RON PAUL CALLED FOR A FORMAL CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF WAR that is a fact. Name me the other Republicans who had the guts.

41 posted on 04/20/2007 7:18:51 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Designer II
Conservatism in foreign policy is interventionism. I have been actively involved in GOP/conservative politics for over 40 years, was a state chairman for Reagan when he challenged Ford, and I was a Congressional nominee.

Paleocowardice was last a claimant for the title of "conservative" before Pearl Harbor. Our nation needs neither the internationalist globaloney of MSM, nor the mirror image spineless cowardice of "paleos" and leftists alike. We need a manly foreign policy which features aggressive and effective military intervention whenever necessary to vindicate American interests. We intervene when we want, why we want and to the extent we want and should seek no approval whatsoever from any other nation. If they want to help, we can let them. If not, not. No kowtowing to the UN or to Putin or to Red China or to France, or to the other former "powers" who are now PC surrender monkeys of old Europe.

If the Islamofascisti or other enemies of our nation and our culture don't like that, toooooo baaaaaaad!!! In foreign policy, neither George McGovern nor the despicable Neville Chamberlain nor Jane Fonda nor Dennis Cuckoocinich nor PaleoPaulie nor Weepy Walter Jones nor John Duncan are even vaguely conservative any more than are John Murtha, John the Traitor Kerry, Ted the Swimming Driver, BaaBaa Boxer, Harry (despicable treasonous weasel) Reid, Facelift Nancy or the rest of the antiwar, AntiAmerican slime.

AND the term "world's policeman" is every bit as much a part of 1960s-70s Marxist antiwar AntiAmerican jargon as "national liberation", "self-determination" and te rest of the Daily Worker lexicon.

Isolationists are the cowardly scum who think that if they stick their heads in the sand like ostriches the baaaaad men will go away. Internationalists are those who want to squander American tax money on foreign aid, "nation building", and payoffs to foreign dictators in exchange for "peace in our time" as Chamberlain used to whine.

Dubya ain't perfect but he is near infinitely superior to the isolationist ostriches like paleoPaulie and Weepy Walter and UpChuck Hegel and probably Duncan.

If you want to stick up for the cowards who are "paleos", feel free but you will find overwhelming opposition here. It's not 1935 and we're not going back.

42 posted on 04/20/2007 9:16:40 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
On foreign policy, military policy and war, paleoPaulie is the functional equivalent of the worst cowardly antiwar, antiAmerican Demonrats (such as Dennis Cuckoocinich, Paul Abercrombie, Nancy Facelift, et al.).

GOP Congressmen and GOP candidates naturally enough act like, well, Republicans and not like paleoPaulie, the king of squish in the face of America's enemies. He is a Congressman and he does not look like much when posing as philosopher king or idiot savant or Ramsay Clark or whatever.

43 posted on 04/20/2007 9:27:06 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Conservative foreign/military policy features a strong military and interventionism on our terms and no one else's, not endless and useless diployakkityyak or eccentric notions of process that make action in our national interest cumbersome to the nth degree.

It is the liberals, Marxists, Demonrats, "paleos" (see Justin Raimondo's antiwar.com) and other antiwar antiAmerican eccentrics who are forever whining whenever this nation actually ACTS rather than blubbering pathetically in their cocktails over how everything is just awful and WHY normal folks have no use for paleoPaulie (no Marxist, no liberal generally but a "useful idiot" nonetheless).

No one is making you fight. If you want to sit it out, feel free. Conservatives will do the heavy lifting as ever while the Libertoonian eccentrics spin excuses for favoring our nation's enemies over our nation.

44 posted on 04/20/2007 9:40:45 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
"I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation building."

- George W. Bush, 2000

"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is going around the world saying this is the way its gotta be."

- George W. Bush


45 posted on 04/20/2007 11:38:04 PM PDT by Verax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

46 posted on 04/21/2007 12:04:07 AM PDT by Verax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe; OrthodoxPresbyterian
OK Number one. From night one GW Bush took our troops to Iraq for the purpose NATION BUILDING. Anyone with two functional brain cells could see it coming when such things as utilities, roads, bridges, and communications were spared. Those were take out first night items on any battle field.

The cowardice is refusal to direct defense resources toward actual defense of the borders. The cowardice is failure to stop wasting troops and lives in liberal nation-building offensives.

47 posted on 04/21/2007 5:06:47 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; Designer II; cva66snipe
Conservatism Liberalism in foreign policy is interventionism.

Fixed.

48 posted on 04/21/2007 5:10:23 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; cva66snipe

There is no Congressman with the name “PaleoPaulie.”


49 posted on 04/21/2007 5:12:38 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Verax; cva66snipe
"I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation building." - George W. Bush, 2000

President Bush was right about this. It is a shame that he changed to a liberal position and wasted our tax dollars accordingly.

50 posted on 04/21/2007 5:14:59 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson