Posted on 06/15/2007 7:24:20 AM PDT by Fiji Hill
Sad isn't it. Paul is a very solid conservative, but so many have either forgotten or never brothered to learn what it means to really be conservative that the label has lost all meaning. The dumbing down continues, the "plan" is working. Anyone that thinks Bush has one conservative bone in his body has not the slightest idea of what American Conservatism really means.
‘#1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative: I have nothing against libertarians. To the contrary, I like them and welcome them into the Republican Party. But, conservatives have even less interest in seeing a libertarian as the GOP’s standard bearer than seeing a moderate as our party’s nominee. In Paul’s case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side. So, although he is a small government guy, he very poorly represents conservative opinion on a wide variety of other important issues. ‘
Actually, he’s a libertarian unless there is a GOP fundraiser he will benefit from. Then he plays the role of Republican.....
Among the annoying supporters of Paul the author forgot to list the out-and-out Nazi-line racialists, who have hitched their wagon to the star of "limited government" in America just as they earlier hitched it to totalitarian government in Europe.
In fact, the whole "palaeolibertarian" movement (the very word is an oxymoron) is merely the adaptation to American politics of European fascism. The radical fascist "right" has always been hyper-relativistic (their whole ideology is a hatred of universals and a celebration of a multiplicity of equally valid truths and worldviews). Thus if he were in Spain Paul would probably call for a return to a highly-centralized totalitarian falangist state; but in the USA he and his ilk put on tri-corner hats and try to sound like Thomas Jefferson.
No conservatism without Israel! No Israel without G-d!
>>> When you’re fighting terrorists abroad
>> The Bush Republican WOT isn’t working.
I think the War on Terror is working fine. Just a week or two ago, the TERRORISTS in Iraq wanted to discuss a cease fire. What isn’t working is the domestic propaganda (using the term in the non-derogatory sense) arm of the War on Terror ...
The War itself is going fine ... the media and domestic selling of the war is not going well at all.
>> He’s the only candidate who garners support across party lines. If Ron Paul can’t win the election no Republican can.
Ridiculous. He doesn’t even get the support of a plurality in HIS OWN party ... much less “across party lines”. Sure ... there are liberals that like him (though, in my book, this isn’t a good argument for why I should vote to nominate him).
>> But it doesn’t bother you that Bush Republicans have given us the biggest foreign policy disaster in our history?
Please ... 3,500 deaths in Iraq is hardly the “biggest foreign policy disaster in our history”. Like I said ... we’re losing the propaganda war ... not the ACTUAL war.
>> The only one on your list that stands a chance is Giuliani and that’s because he’s a Democrat.
I think Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani (though Romney has an outside chance) are really the only two in our party with a chance at the WH (though there are only a couple of Democrats with any chance either ... so I’m not sure thats an indictment of the Republican Party).
Personally ... I’m pulling for a ticket of Fred Thompson and J.C. Watts. Thompson is the most conservative candidate with broad appeal. He is the only Republican candidate that I have seen ANY excitement over (outside of a few rabid Paul and Tancredo supporters ... two candidates with only slightly less chance at the Presidency than Ralph Nader). According to statements and voting record, Thompson is fiscally conservative, socially conservative, strong on defense and the War on Terror, and tough on Immigration. His vote on campaign finance was lousy ... but that’s a small concession (and one which may actually HELP his broad appeal outside the party).
A
No, it was yesterday for a couple of dozen posts. They’ll show up eventually given their level of commitment.
>>> Case in point - the House recently voted to expand the government’s reach as it applies to previously passed gun control legislation. Dr. Paul actively campaigned against it. It was reported that Dr. Paul was the ONLY NO vote
>> That’s true, Ron Paul is the only Republican who put his money where his mouth is and voted against the gun grabbers.
The NRA supported the bill ... and I trust their assessment of the bill over Ron Paul’s. If the NRA and ALL Republicans except Paul (including MANY that I trust) supported the bill ... I’m fine with it.
The Bill would purportedly keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and people with mental health problems ... two sets of people with NO right to keep and bear arms. That isn’t a “gun grab” ... that is just common sense.
A
‘Ron Paul is a hell of a lot more conservative then you.’
Debatable if I choose to explain myself to a screen name, which I won’t.
” He is my congressman and I am getting pissed at all these “know nothings” attacking him.”
I only go by what I hear the man say, sorry so far he hasn’t impressed me.
” Ron Paul is also a hell of a lot more conservative the your boy Bush”
Obviously you are ignorant concerning my view of the President, so I’ll let this slide.
” that has preety much destroyed the GOP and is doing his damnest to destroy the country.”
And its the drama queen aspects, as you demonstrate here, that are keeping Ron Paul from being seriously considered for a political job outside of your district.
“Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States.”
Which is why this country is in such deep shit!
*************************************************************
Bingo!
In other words, its already happening up above.
No reason to get ‘snippy’ you can run a search and see it for yourself. I’m not interested in naming those from yesterday, for the simple reason its not of keen interest to regurgitate that nonsense here on this thread.
Love how you Paulie supporters bring about additional support for your guy, btw....(chuckle)
Being concerned about the advance of Socialism while turning a blind-eye to the advance of Radical Islam is no badge of honor ... it is suicidal.
It is important that a President have the wherewithall to deal with multiple threats on multiple fronts ... yes, socialist government intrusion is important, and there are other candidates who can just as easily deal with it. Paul seems incapable, however, of recognizing the far more pressing Islamic threat.
A
‘I’m not getting snippy. I really do want to know who complained to the mods. You posted the claim’
Its not a ‘claim’ its fact.
>>> Being concerned about the advance of Socialism while turning a blind-eye to the advance of Radical Islam is no badge of honor ... it is suicidal.
>> Now I understand! It’s okay to give up our liberties to wage religious war.
Now I understand!! It’s okay to completely and intentionally mischaracterize someone’s point-of-view simply so they’re easier to argue against.
Where, exactly, did I say “it’s okay to give up our liberties to wage religious war”? What I said is its not okay to ignore a substantial international threat to the U.S. specifically, and international peace generally, simply because you have a myopic focus on socialism.
I believe my exact statement was that “it is important that a President have the wherewithall to deal with multiple threats on multiple fronts.” I then SPECIFICALLY admitted a justifiable concern for creeping socialism ... just not to the exclusion of the more pressing threat of Islamic radicalism.
Take a reading comprehension course ...
A
Clowns of a feather...
Pray for W and Our Troops
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.