Ping!
Posted on 07/20/2007 12:19:50 AM PDT by John Farson
It comes right down to freedom. They want to go back to small government. Not smaller government. Small government as it was originally intended. And that is what really unites most of our support.
The word ‘freedom’ is a short-hand way of explaining Paul’s platform.
Paul supports a drastically reduced federal government- the elimination of the IRS, he believes state’s should be left to regulate abortion and marriage policies.
He questions many international organizations and agreements, such as the World Trade Organization, NAFTA and the country’s membership to the United Nations.
(Excerpt) Read more at nhpr.org ...
Ping!
Paul died the moment he accused the US of attempting a “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” to unjustly begin a war against Iran. Add to that his demand we immediately withdraw from Iraq. Not that his candidacy wasn’t dead before then.
Nobody wants an antiwar candidate in a time of war, least of all Republicans.
This Primary race is between Hunter and Thompson. We just have to hope they don’t split the vote, and give us a Guiliani.
And people have been telling me he's pro-life. Another leg of his increasingly-laughable status as a Republican is knocked out from under him.
Ron Paul--For "Republicans" who want a Kucinich of their very own.
Love that, and I’m stealin’ it! ROFLMFBO!
The war is increasingly unpopular. If the Republicans have any hopes of re-taking Congress, they should consider the growing discontent over the war.
If the Republicans don't face the war issue during the primaries, they will not be prepared for a very brutal general election.
I think Paul is the best candidate in the race for his proven record of championing conservative constitutional principles.
You remember federalism, don't you?
Ron Paul , Ob/Gyn , signs have popped up all over my community . Just the guy we need in a time of war , huh?
What is Ron Paul’s position on NATO?
There. All fixed.
Paul has received a tremendous amount of support by way of campaign donations from our military. He is among the top 2 or 3 candidates receiving support from military personnel.
Whether you think policing Iraq is good policy or not, Republicans should acknowledge reality and plan for the election accordingly.
I know what the Gulf of Tonkin was. It would seem highly unlikely to me Bush is about to create, de novo, a new war based on false pretenses at this point. Clearly we need everything we have in Iraq, if we’re going to win, and that seems to beush’s strategy. That paul is afraid of a new war based on false pretenses makes me wonder about his judgement, and ability to perceive reality, as well as if eh suffers from some type of paranoia.
Additionally, alleging such makes Ron Paul come off as the typical blame America first liberal masquerading as a Libertarian conservative, as that is a textbook liberal MO. His anti-war stuff adds to that image.
I’m not sure how much you’ve been around the past month, but Paul is pretty much dead on this site, and with the Arch Conservatives who run the party.
Hell, check my posting history, I’m Arch Libertarian, and I wouldn’t vote for him. Then again, I’m the individual rights type Libertarian who just wants to be left alone, but loves America, not the anti authority type libertarian who hates government, or hates war, or wants pot legalized.
You’ll be in for a rough ride on this post, brother.
With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.
—William F. Buckley, Jr.
NYT interview (6/24/2004)
>Or a Romney.
Excellent point.
Debunked here as well as other places.
I work with deployed troops. I see different groups of them all the time and work directly with several military daily.
Not ONE of them supports Ron Paul in any way, shape or form whatsoever.
The Party officials that push McCain, Romney, and Guiliani are hardly conservative.
I'm certainly not duped into thinking that the entire U.S. populace feels the way people in Washington, DC, California and Massachusetts do.
You anti-war people have tried all of the agruments with me and you won't change my mind. I've even FReeped ANSWER rallies. Believe me; I've heard all of the left's points on this.
Surrender is NOT an option, IMO. And I do not support anybody who believes that it is.
Clearly, if we had good intelligence on Iraq, not going in would have been the best option. But we didn’t have good intelligence, we did the best we could, and now we are there.
Do we stay? I think the consensus on this site is to see how the surge plays out. Nobody wants to hand Al Qaida a victory to trumpet on there next recruiting video, or give them a lawless country in which to train terrorists who can them come here to wreck our country’s economy. To pull out now mid surge is ridiculous.
BTW, nice bending of Buckley’s quote, as if he agrees with Paul. Buckly said he wouldn’t have gone in. Bush probably agrees. Buckley never said “Lets pull all our Troops today, mid-surge”
Only Paul and the Liberals in Congress are Moronic enough to say that.
Your anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Ron Paul has received significant support from military personnel. Whether he is the top recipient is questionable. The donations themselves are real.
May the best candidate win!
I've seen up close how the media can skew anything it wants. There is no level to which they will not stoop.
I've noticed that Paul's fans use similar tactics to push their agenda.
Not buying any of it.
I also have to say, I find it vexing you would base a decision with massive ramifications, such as pulling out of Iraq, upon soley political concerns.
Clinton ran the country soley to facilitate his re-election. Every decision, even down to where he would vacation was polled by Dick Morris.
There is something undeniably unsettling about someone who would subjugate their own sense of right and wrong to the whims of the masses in a self absorbed desire to achieve victory. It is something I do not think any man of character or honor should be capable of.
One thing I will say for Bush. He rarely seems to care about his electoral prospects, his poll numbers, or his “Legacy”.
I'm not the one making personal attacks.
When Paul doesn't win the nomination, are you going to vote Republican in the Presidental Election?
Yea never mind he supported action in Afghanistan huh? While Bush fiddles our troops are being worn down from being over deployed. Rotations inside Iraq are longer as are what was standard 4 year active duty enlistments. But here is the problem. GW Bush does not know or understand how to fight a war. He wants to play social engineer to three tribes who have centuries of history of war with each other. He didn't want to end Iraq's future potential as a military threat good grief the man is rearming them and having them trained for the next Saddam.
Going after those responsible for 9/11 is one thing but please name me the Iraqis who were on those planes. Iraq could have been handled covertly. Saddam had no air force, not a real great army, no Navy, and we had their skies locked down.
If Bush wanted that war so blasted bad then you tell me why he didn't let the soldiers do their job and level it and be done with it? Instead he has turned it into a nation building boondoggle a tar baby we now likely will never be free of. Worse he has united what was once an enemy nation against Iraq against us as well. All this time no additional call for more troops on permenant active duty.
The other problem is General George failed to plan. Where are the needed extra forces to give those who are on third and forth tours relief? The reserves? He's destroying that program as well. Bush deceived all of us even to the point of his Mission Accomplished nonsense on a flight-deck. Ron Paul has read him like a book as well as his fellow members of congress.
Congress in either party did not want this war as in a full scale knock down drag out get it over with war lasting in months rather than a decade from now limited hands tied actions. Thats why they took the cowards way out in their authorization of use of force rather than an actual declaration or war which would have bound congress and Bush to it's swift end. They did it to save their political butts and only Ron Paul had the guts to say NO! in the GOP. He was right. Either declare it or shut up.
Bush has tied the troops hands as bit as much as LBJ did trying to protect the Iraqi people. Yet it's good because he's a Republican? Maybe if Bush had actually flown a combat mission he would have had a different view about what it takes to win. We will not win in Iraq under the Bush war plan because he has no war plan. That is one reason he can't keep generals. He doesn't allow plans for war but for policing limited areas. He has a nation building plan which in 2000 he said he was against nation building. He sure changed his mind fast now didn't he.
His intent from day one in Iraq was nation building and the first two days of air attacks proved as much. Three wars behind us say it can not be done this way and now we wish to make it four because Republicans won't stand up to a POTUS who refuses to admit he screwed up royally on this? We were headed to Iraq 9/11 or not.
About Ron Paul being anti-war? No I don't think so. If the U.S. came under direct attack he would call for a formal declaration of war from congress and that nation would soon regret starting it. He would fight it as a war telling the generals do what it takes to win and you have our blessings and full support. Even FDR knew and understood war and what it took. He let the generals run the war even the tyrant he was otherwise. Truman forgot what it takes as did Johnson and Nixon. Poppy forgot as well. Remember Poppy? He was the one whop mobilized our military into Iraq for war then let Saddam go free. He didn't have the guts either. Then Junior turns right around and has the same clowns plan for another invasion?
So tell me. If Reagan had sent the troop levels into Iraq that Bush did do you think he would have them sitting over there as Nannies and nation builders? Or do you think he would have asked for a plan from the generals to destroy the nation and be done with it to limit loss of American life and equipment and avoid a drawn out war by limited hands tied actions? Actually Reagan was a sneaky man. He didn't strut around on national TV for months on end saying Mommar I'm coming after you. He bombed the man and then Mommar shut up.
You can not take a POTUS serious who is not willing to let the military do their job. Nation building and baby sitting a government is not their job. Bush does not understand this and thus the reason he is loosing support even in the GOP. Their job is to destroy and kill. They are not policemen or the Peace Corp. They are soldiers.
I can understand why. He is the only one who actually understands what the military is to be used for.
Does Paul's definition of a direct attack include the firing of missiles at our pilots on a routine basis. Or does our homeland have to get hit before Paul considers an attack on Americans to constitute an act of war?
If forced to choose -- I could vote for Duncan Hunter or Tancredo. I'd rather stay home than vote for McCain, Guiliani, Romney, etc.
Are you in Iraq as an armed service member or as a civilian working for a contractor? Just curious.
Right. He is not pro-life, but is anti-Roe v. Wade. Not the same thing. (Though better than the Dims and Guliani).
I do attack anti-war leftists. If you see yourself in that category, that is your choice.
I have been going after anti-war leftists since 2003. Nothing new.
Who figured that out ? Propaganda?
Duncan Hunter I could believe , he understands the troops and the troops understand him , but Paul?
I remember in the first debate he was asked the question ; if he’d ever had to deal with a crisis , or something like that.
He completely stumbled and fumbled around and came up with about the lamest answer imaginable ...and they went on to the next guy.
Nope, if I were soldier Mr. Paul would be about the last person I would want as my C&C . Soldiers are not pussies , they just want leaders that give the command and then stand aside and let them do their job.
That’s the kind of Prez we need now , and in 08 ....
I guess that means you are not going to be voting for a Republican in the next presidential election.
I travel outside the wire regularly to Iraqi governement buildings - with US military convoys.
our homeland was attacked directly and personally I would love to see our dear President call for a declaration of WAR on al Qaeda and Iran both .
al Qaeda ? yep , make it a first....as a underworld nation
we should declare upon them.
And our guys were allowed to do what> Mustn't fire back might injure civilians and make Saudi friends the Iraqi friends mad. No No can't do. A Clinton policy as well. Guys get shot at now and the perps hide in the civilian population. Finally the troops having had enough open fire. Civilians die and Liberal JAG's start the Court Martial process. That is not how war is won. Our pilots were being fired upon thanks to Bush's daddy and Clinton. Guess what? They are still being fired at five plus years into this because Bush will not turn the troops loose to do what they have to do to win which is kill innocent and guilty alike. That is how we fought all wars even the Civil War up till Korea when we began loosing them.
Paul supporters are not the ones resorting to ad hominem attacks and desperate smears.
OK thanks for your honesty.
Two things. First, I am not a Bushbot, and am profoundly vexed by his compassionate crap. I wish he would have had the stones to install a Kurd as a Saddam-lite puppet, and get out. My opposition to Paul isn’t a vote for GWB. I have been vocal here that I do not believe the Iraqis will ever be able to live in a truly free country.
On Iraq. Best option now seems clearly to see how the surge plays out. It seems to me silly to pull out mid-surge. And what happens when we pull out? We are in a corner, with no ideal options that are realistic. But I think an immediate pullout is a bad idea, for now. If the surge fails, then it’s another question.
On Reagan. It may seem blasphemous, but I don’t know what Reagan would have done. I honestly have no idea if in real life he lived up to the idealized view everyone has of him today. Imad Mugneiyah is still alive in Iran, after torturing and killing Bobby Stetham at point blank range.
>You can not take a POTUS serious who is not willing to let
>the military do their job. Nation building and baby sitting
>government is not their job.
No arguments. Bush and his compassion, Kumbayah, We are the World crap sucks.
As for Paul, I get the vibe off him of the liberal type of libertarian, and I do not seem to be the only one. There is no way he can rally support at this point, especially after the Gulf of Tonkin statement.
So we agree that the firing of missiles at our pilots constituted an act of war by Hussein -- in fact repeated acts of war. Given that, how come Paul didn't support going to war against the Baathists?
Actually *declaring* war would be a start.
After the marine barracks bombing, Reagan reconsidered and pulled our troops out. He said there was no accounting for the irrationality of middle eastern politics.
Grass RootsSmoking Activists Push for Paul
Because of the history of that era. It wasn't just that one. There was more so called slip ups where Johnson put men in harms way that needed not happen. When opposition for Nam was heating up lo and behold a U.S. Navy ship is captured off North Korea. An unarmed intelligence ship except a 50 caliber and a ship laden with classified material with no means of Emergency Destruct because they didn't listen to the ships Captains concerns then after his crew was released Court Martial him. In the mean time LBJ night after night wagged North Korea on TV while Nam went on. People focused on Pueblo not Nam.
There was also Liberty which IMO Johnson never came clean on. Why send a ship into the middle of someone else's war? Johnson was a man few trusted and IMO not above back door deals with Syria whom Israel or Egypt was fighting. Again all eyes focused on Liberty and not Nam.
No elected leader is above checks and balances and scrutiny. Ron Paul is likely the most educated of all persons running for POTUS and he applies the history so mistakes are not to be repeated.
You Libertarians amaze me. It is all form over substance with you. It's not important to you that Bush actually got congressional authorization to attack Al Qaeda. What's important to you is the label placed on the authorization. Putting aside the fact that there were good reasons for not 'Declaring War' on Al Qaeda, you sound just like children quibbling with adults over the form of things rather than the substance.
I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that this is a fraud perpetrated by the MSM. They would love nothing better than to achieve the same “coup” they did in Vietnam. Remember Walter “Crock-of-sh!t”, et al? I sure do.
Yeah, that Constitution thing is so antiquated — we should just ignore it. Article 1, Section 8 is just toilet paper.
Answer me this and you'll have your answer to your question. Which Republican Congressman called for a vote for a formal declaration of war against Iraq. Which ones and which POTUS was against it? Those missiles could have been stopped without war by simply allowing the pilots to carpet bomb the entire area sparing no one. Why was that not allowed?
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.