Easy way to help Ron Paul (Pres. candidate)

Me | Me

[Zhang Fei]

Anyone who seeks out financial support from the enemy, has sold his soul. Blood money. George Soros and his affiliates are the enemy within.

We have real enemies. We have disagreements with George Soros. But he is not our enemy. Neither is Ron Paul. Nor any of the Democratic candidates. We do get carried away sometimes. But in moments of clarity, we should note that none of these people organizes terrorist attacks or finances them. They disagree with us on some issues, but that's all. Of course, my definition of an enemy is someone deserves an anonymous grave in a hastily dug six-foot hole. While alive and tied up.

[Zhang Fei]

Why stop now? It's more fun to call us names, since it's not like Republicans need our votes or anything.

I think it's important to remember that libertarians and conservatives agree on a lot of issues. It would be unfortunate to let atmospherics and overheated rhetoric come between our mutual interests. Democratic tax hikes will cost everyone thousands of dollars each, but words from over-enthused conservatives during campaign season are just that - rhetoric.

[swmobuffalo]

No thanks. Paul is a kook. Support Duncan Hunter!

[LexBaird]

Think there might be some reason his constituents keep electing him?

Habit? Texan cussedness? Entertainment value? The (R) beside his name on the ballot despite his real allegiance to the (L) party? He isn't as blue skinned as other libertarian candidates? Am I getting warm?

[Xenalyte]

Two words.

Strict construction.

It’s appealing, once you get used to the idea. (I know it’s revolutionary, since we haven’t seen it in oh, like my lifetime or something.)

[LexBaird]

Two words. Strict construction. It’s appealing, once you get used to the idea.

Great! If he were younger, I'd want him in the USSC. But protest votes among 435 other Congressmen achieves little, and I see no evidence that he has any aptitude at being able to wield influence, build consensus coalitions or achieve any goals in the House with his strict constructivism. Why don't y'all vote him into the Senate, where at least he could filibuster everything?

But in the White House, where he would be America's foreign policy leader, err...no. His isolationist ideas have proved unrealistic since at least 1941.

[Xenalyte]

I’d love to vote for him. Unfortunately, I’m outside his district, so I can’t.

If isolationism is so bad, let’s amend the Constitution to make foreign aid and intervention acceptable, so the otherwise unexceptionable Dr. Paul can be in sync with the rest of us.

I mean, it’s a laudable goal, so we should be able to get an amendment passed no problem. Yes?

[malibu2008]

after his ridiculous comment in the debate, What was Rudy thinking ? Plenty of reasonable people can disagree about foreign policy. What's really strange is when one reasonable position is completely and forcibly excluded from the public debate. Such was the case after 9-11. Every close observer of the events of those days knows full well that these crimes were acts of revenge for US policy in the Muslim world. The CIA and the 911 Commission said as much, the terrorists themselves proclaimed it, and Osama underscored the point by naming three issues in particular: US troops in Saudi Arabia, US sanctions against Iraq, and US funding of Israeli expansionism. So far as I know, Ron Paul is the only prominent public figure in the six years since who has given an honest telling of this truth. The explosive exchange occurred during the Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina. Ron was asked if he really wants the troops to come home, and whether that is really a Republican position. "Well," he said, "I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy – no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them." He was then asked if 9-11 changed anything. He responded that US foreign policy was a "major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East – I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. ". And then out of the blue, he was asked whether we invited the attacks. "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time – have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary." Then someone on stage whose very actions were a contributing factor to the September 11 attacks by challenging the Bush administration, the INS, and the Supreme Court with contemptible disdain all to promote New York City's policy of harboring illegals, and providing the Sanctuary City that enabled Atta et al. to be on expired visas and then use NYC to launch attacks on the USA - the former NYC mayor and former Democrat Rudolph Giuliani - interrupts and lisps - "That's really an extraordinary statement, That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th." Now, this is interesting because it is obvious that Ron Paul never said that we invited the attacks. This was a lie. He said the US foreign policy was a "contributing factor" in why they attacked us, a fact which only a fool or a liar like Giuliani or Hannity could deny. Giuliani then went on to say that he has never "heard that before" – a statement that testifies to the extent of the blackout on this question. Ron Paul was invited to respond, and concluded as follows: "I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were – if other foreign countries were doing that to us?" Wow, he broke the great taboo in American political life! Why this should be a taboo at all is unclear, but there it is. But now that it is finally out in the open, this is a shocking theory to Rudia that the terrorists were not merely freedom-hating madmen but perhaps had some actual motive for their crime. And then when asked about this from Mo Hannity in the post-debate interview Giuliani lisps that he couldn't understand WHAT Dr. Paul said in rebuttal. Rudia WILL have to start understanding - he now has less than 3 weeks - 19 days to be exact - until the New Hampshire GOP debate on June 5th, but that still might not be enough time for the "I-am-not-really-a-catholic-but-maybe-I-can-obfuscate-everything-about-me-enough-that-the-deceived-masses-will-vote-for-me" to flip-flop and waffle his way out again. Oh Rudia - that's good, why that is very good.

[Calpernia]

You need to learn a little history.

I can’t help you with that on a message board.

I’m sure you are one that doesn’t remember what happened to the Armenians. The ones you support are thankful of that.

[Zhang Fei]

You need to learn a little history. I can’t help you with that on a message board. I’m sure you are one that doesn’t remember what happened to the Armenians. The ones you support are thankful of that.

I know of the massacre and a great deal else. I just don't see how opposing Ron Paul's candidacy even if he does become the GOP nominee and maligning libertarians will have any impact on what happened almost a hundred years ago.

[LexBaird]

If isolationism is so bad, let’s amend the Constitution to make foreign aid and intervention acceptable, so the otherwise unexceptionable Dr. Paul can be in sync with the rest of us.

No need.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to ... provide for the common defence, ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,..."

"The Congress shall have Power To ... define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

"The President ... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

You may not like what the Feds do with their foreign policy, but it is within their Constitutional Powers.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

George Soros also favors ending the drug war. While I don’t like him, I’m happy to take his money for something I support, so I don’t care if he funds anti-drug war groups. In fact, I’d gladly take it, because it’s money he CAN’T spend on something I DON’T support.

[mathluv]

I have said I would support any pubbie against a dim. paul would be an exception to that.

[Calpernia]

Thanks for clarifying my post 111.

[Dada Orwell]

I like Ron Paul’s idea of using Jefferson-style Letters of Marque and Reprisal to kill terrorists. He submitted that as a bill but the Congress or maybe a committee shot it down.

In this he is closer to the Israeli approach of assasination which they prefer over all out war. Israelis aren’t perfect and Paul recognizes this, but assasination beats war. Ron Paul war would probably be more effectively and efficiently waged than George Bush war has been.

And he at least would support your right to defend yourself or to form militias...I don’t see Bush as strong on supporting these rights. His pentegon helped shut down the Cantor Fitzgerald attempt to form a private army of assasins to fight Al-Queida.

[Johnny Crab]

Yep.

Rush echo machines: “snowball’s chance in hell”
Ox news: where it’s “We Distort, We Decide, You’re along for the ride.”