Skip to comments.Ron Paul: A Conservative Study in Contrasts
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 ...
This April 19th, (Waco anniversary) remember....the BATF is the Armed Forces of Gun Control!!!
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
Cho would have been dead and a lot quicker and many of those whom he victimized would not have been shot much less slain.
2 positions that any cnadidate MUST support to get my vote............
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.
I wish the GOP Congressmen would act more like Ron Paul and less like the Democrats!
True, but article is talking about Conservatives.
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)
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.
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.
If that's the case, I'll proudly appropriate that word for myself.
I'm an isolationist.
Perhaps a more neutral term would be “political isolationist.” As an advocate of free trade, I’d happily embrace that term.
Especially intervening in the affairs of another country without a compelling national interest. (Ours, not theirs.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for shedding some "common sense" on the issue.
Speaking of "common sense", where's Tom Payne when you need him!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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
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.
There is no Congressman with the name “PaleoPaulie.”
President Bush was right about this. It is a shame that he changed to a liberal position and wasted our tax dollars accordingly.