Is this the one? I Found it for $2.99 at: At Cafe press.
Posted on 05/18/2007 1:45:08 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
He stands apart from the rest of the GOP field, having opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. He also has called for the immediate abolition of the Internal Revenue Services and other federal programs, declaring himself the "true conservative" in the race because he wants to return the GOP to its non-interventionist roots.
Paul's campaign claims more YouTube subscribers than the campaigns of any other presidential candidates.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
GRPPL Ping
The article is a really good read -- no matter what you think about Ron Paul.
He may be the Sanjaya of the GOP.
I like Ron Paul.
I do too, but the guy's a nut.
I doubt you are qualified to make a diagnosis.
I think everyone who saw Dr. Paul's rant at the FNC debate is qualified to make the diagnosis that he is a nut.
He's my Congressman and on most issues I agree strongly with him. But he is still a Libertarian nut, who forgets that we live in the real world, with real bad guys, not a pristine debating circle.
Even on Constitutional issues he talks a good game, but has he ever got any bill passed that protects our Constitutional rights?
Does anyone in the leadership of either Party even acknowledge his existence, even standing in the same elevator?
Even gadflies need to sting a few times to avoid being ignored.
I too think he’s a nut. And as for my qualifications to make that diagnosis, just let me say I was watching him in the GOP debate on FOX, and the thought crossed my mind: “That guy’s a nut.” That thought has crossed my mind as to other people, and 99.999999% of the time I’m right. I’m 99.999999% sure I’m right this time, too.
He is the only guy that can address domestic issues like Social Security in a context that I can support (as in eliminate it).
He should have known that while his message is totally different from America haters, he used their language and lingo.
No actually he's right. Read the text of the debate in South Carolina and the exact context of his replies. On our M.E. policies he's for the most part right. Our stepping in to every spat has cost us a bundle and made us some enemies.Our ridiculous rules of engagement and mission statements in Iraq {likely written by the state department} are keeping us in a never ending war playing by rules of engagement and a mission statement of nation building which can not work.
If/when our nation goes to war then our troops deserve no less than an unconditional Declaration of War from congress with a precise set military objective. They need that plus their hands unrestrained so they can go in, do their job which is to kill and destroy, {not make friends and rebuild nations} then get out and let the people suffer the effects of letting tyrants come to power to start with. That message is no longer understood by the GOP. They have adopted LBJ {Vietnam} and Truman {Korea} doctrines and they simply do not work.
Our foreign policy is so hopelessly screwed up that half the time our state department intercedes on behalf of the enemies of Israel which are by no means friends of ours.
Just think if we had stayed out of Israels dealings with their enemies how much further along we would be. Say what you want but a small nation that can take on several major M.E. nations at one time or even end Iraqs nuclear capabilities as they did in the early 80's is capable of solving their own terrorist problems without our help.
Ron Paul was responding with historical observations. Rudy was responding by playing on emotionalism of the nation which has been his bread and butter since 9/11.
thank you
He’s America’s favorite isolationist nutbar.
Paul is dead wrong about Israel. And forget about the foreign aid canard. Netanyahu himself has said the U.S. should cease all foreign aid to Israel (and Egypt), and would press for it were he to again become P.M (as seems likely).
Of all of the arguments against Paul, that is the silliest. If you are pro-constitution as you claim to be, why would you blame the one guy of 435 who agrees with you because the other 434 disagree with you?
So what about Israel is Paul dead wrong on?
To base foreign policy on Obl’s manifesto is quote simply asinine, it’s mentality that assumes that “If we were just nice to them, they would leave us alone”. And that is utter rubbish.
I watched the debate just to get a feel for Candidate Paul, and I was left rather put off by him.
I am glad that he has a large ‘Net following, I hope it serves him well as he runs for President on the Libertarian ticket.
Ron Paul gives the definition of a conservative a bad name.
Well he doesn't have any actual conservative stances so he has to run with what he's got. But contrary to Rudy's resume for sainthood he didn't do anything.
Paul was factually correct. The problem I have with sites like LGF ,etc. is let's do a survey of actual IP addresses. Are they coming from the same place? If not don't all citizens have the right to voice their opinion? I would go one better and fathom to say if the Internet were around in 1979 we could have seen much the same path for Reagan's campaign. Would LGF and the others have shut down his as well because Reagan's followers were more savvy and more likely to be on the internet giving them more opportunity to vote?
It will be interesting as this campaign goes on to take a poll of ages of the different campaign supporters. Okay Fred Thompson has the over 60 crowd locked up because they're the only ones watching L&O religiously for the past 1000 years (or however long that dreck has been on the air). Giuliani and McCain followers on average are probably a little younger, still establishment, still wave the flag, etc., and always believe what the government tells them is factual. Romney, maybe a little younger crowd, probably some soccer moms, etc. The others, well they all scored lower than Paul in the latest Zogby poll so we won't bother.
But Rep. Paul is the anti-establishment candidate. The left doesn't have anyone like him. He's going to draw those of us that have read and still believe (almost foolishly it seems to the Republicans) what the Constitution tells us government should be about. We still understand that 'entangling alliances' and 'searching abroad for monsters to destroy' mean something. And perhaps if Wilson wouldn't have felt the need to get involved in something that was none of our business, the 20th century could have possibly turned out a little better than it did.
Idealism? Perhaps. But I don't think when Reagan gave his last speech and talked about that 'shining city on the hill' he was considering it would send out armed sorties to 'correct' the rest of the world's view unless absolutely necessary either.
It says no such thing. The question is: What are the causes of the war, and how could they have been prevented? This is a question that just about every single nation ever involved in a war has asked... except this one.
There is only one accepted answer: That we were just sitting around minding our own business and these evil guys came and attacked us.
To even suggest something else is a heresy.
How about this: Yes, OBL et al are evil and crazy. But, the reason they get recruits, and the reason that they targets us rather than say Israel, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, France, etc. is that we have spent the last 30 year messing around in their business and stationing troops on their soil.
Therefore. Although it wouldn't have happened if OBL was not crazy and evil, it also would not have happened if we just minded our own business.
He’s against amnesty for illegals, anchor babies and is for border control. He sounds more sane to me than our current officeholder, El Presidente Bush.
He would not be basing on abiding in such but rather understanding it. Look you tell me how we can win any respect in the Middle East Islamic world when our elected leaders are so stupid they send a woman to deliver their message and talk to Islamic nations? Before you start yelling think about it? It is an insult to them and just how does a thinking person believe they will respond? One they will laugh and see it as a weakness. Two they will be angry because their custom is the men govern.
It doesn't matter what you or I think about women as Sec of State. It does matter to the nation to whom they are addressing. That kind of mis-steps and arrogance does us no favors. I don't have to agree with Islamic nations policies to understand cause and effect.
Ron Paul said correctly so the United States has underestimated the Islamic nations. They are not rational or civilized as a whole. They will fight over an acre of land. How much more so over what they see as an invasion? There is no sense in making them mad when we do not have to. Reagan understood it and adjusted foreign policy with a troops withdrawal in Lebanon. Reagan though like Ron Paul would also not hesitate if needed to send a missile into some dictators tent to send a clear personal message.
As for his comments about bombing Iraq for 10 years? Well thank Poppy Bush for it and Clinton for staying Poppy's foreign policy course.
“No actually he’s right. Read the text of the debate in South Carolina and the exact context of his replies. On our M.E. policies he’s for the most part right. Our stepping in to every spat has cost us a bundle and made us some enemies.”
His rundown of the history of Iran was downright kooky and flat out wrong.
It wasn’t our support for the Shah in 53, it was Carters support of the Mullahs that did Iran in.
As for LGF? I think they're making a huge mistake. The days where party heads tell voters what to think and how to vote hopefully are coming to an end thanks to the Internet. Which brings up another point. How long before they silence this threat? It's been tried by Feingold and McCain. The one things incumbents fear more than anything is angry voters. Why would they not try and silence ones telling them they have a reason to be mad?
Ron Paul is deluded.
Try Jerry Ford's EO making state sponsoring terrorism risk free. The Shah wasn't much better than those who took his place. Kinda like Marshall Tito in the former Yugoslavia. Our biggest mistake was arming Iran to start with.
Yeah. Right.
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
A clear reading. To train an Army you must have a full time operation. Our technology as well as our equipment require 24/7/365 care.
“He should have known that while his message is totally different from America haters, he used their language and lingo.”
He came off as implying that we’re contaminating the rest of the world — this is the message we get from Noam Chomsky and the others.
His foreign policy view might sell if he came off as saying the rest of the world contaminates us when we try and solve their problems.
And at the end of the day, with or without Pauline hadnwringing, OBL has to die.
His reason de etre’ matters not a whit, yet Paul somehow thinks that it does, and that is rather foolish to say the least.
Why bother to reference Obl’s manifesto, if it did not influnce Paul’s opinion? The obvious answer is that it did influence Paul’s view, and it formed his opinion that he stated during the debate.
So do tell, what is the difference between Ron Paul and the Saudi prince who on the heels of 9/11 offered to donate money to NYC, while adding the caveat of “You need to stop supporting Israel”?
I am no Rudy fan, but hsi returning of the donation was the absolute correct thing to do.
Good post.
Bump
Besides, just what are our troops fighting for?? Not just the dirt under our feet, but for our whole culture, our Constitution, the rule of law - not for the new socialist cesspool that will be left after this invasion from the south. Why aren’t our troops protecting our own border??
Any candidate who is against this immigration bill is not our enemy. It’s that simple.
I said nothing about enemies, but also you must acknowledge that one can be right on one issue and a nutbar on five others.
No, it's not.
I bet you the former USSR leaders wished they had taken time to study the mans insanity more. You don't have to agree with a mad man {Bin Ladden} to try and understand him in order to form a better foreign policy. You need to understand his thinking no matter how warped to deal with the problems he brings. This is how criminologist catch their person. That is where both DEMs and GOP have failed. The leader who understands Bin Laddens thinking will be the one who brings him down. The USSR thought their might alone could do it. They didn't get him. He is obviously still living even now.
Our intelligence has been so faulted we failed to get people inside his circle. To do that we have to understand how he thinks and reacts. Once that is done one man and a bullet or one accurate call in of grid coordinates gets the kill.
Or try this sometime and maybe you'll understand. Go try and chase down a herd of goats sometime. See how close you get before they make unpredictable and irrational moves. They are also very territoral even down to a few square inches of space. Let another enter it without their conscent and BLAM. That is true even within the herd. Then after you waste your time chasing them have the person they trust rattle a potato chip bag and see how fast they break their stupid necks and fight each other to get their first. Trust me the herd leader will always get to the front of the line for the chips.
Thanks
Interesting point. At the conclusion of the War of 1812, President Madison stated that Congress needed to appropriate funds for a standing army, a harsh lesson he had learned from the war. Madison, always a guardian of the Constitution, did not believe the Constitution needed amending to accomplish this.
Ever since the Republicans failed to execute after regaining control of the congress in 1994, I've been sending money to Ron Paul.
I'm 1,200 miles from his district, but he's my kind of nut.
“Don’t take my comments as an endorsement of Ron Paul. It’s just an observation.”
I saw my first 2008 bumper sticker tonight and it was for Ron Paul.
This still would not replace a state militia though which I do believe in 100% and see as being the right of any state. They are needed now more than ever. States should organize them and tell the FED hands off. Since most states have lost virtually all say of their NG's over the past nerly two decades they could take over their mission within the state.
Gotta get one of those.
Isolationists like Ron Paul lost on 12/7/41 and there’s no going back.
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
How would you rate him as a pro-lifer?
Pity that all this time, energy, and money promoting Ron Paul will be wasted since he does not have a snowball’s chance of the nomination let alone beating Mrs. Clinton. Come on folks. You need to stop jousting windmills and get serious about the 2008 election. Only a united party can win the White House again. It is too early to know who our candidate will be, but I’m totally sure it will not be Ron Paul.
Is this the one? I Found it for $2.99 at: At Cafe press.
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.