Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul's Statement of Faith
The Covenent News ^ | July 21, 2007 | Rep. Ron Paul, MD.

Posted on 07/22/2007 5:09:49 AM PDT by lfrancis

Statement of Faith By Rep. Ron Paul, MD. The Covenant News ~ July 21, 2007

We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.

It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.

I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.

On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that “…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.” I’m sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.

I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.

Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: paul; ronpaul; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-149 next last
I, like many here am concerned about what a Ron Paul foreign policy bring about. I think it's unfortunate when he tags along with Democrats on those letters to the President, without explaining himself. I also think, all in all, he is a good man.
1 posted on 07/22/2007 5:09:51 AM PDT by lfrancis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lfrancis

He’s a MOONBAT


2 posted on 07/22/2007 5:11:13 AM PDT by zipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lfrancis

http://www.ilovewavs.com/Holidays/Halloween/Music/Twilight%20Zone%20TV%20Theme%20-%20With%20the%20introduction%20words.wav


3 posted on 07/22/2007 5:17:33 AM PDT by badpacifist (If your ass won't move there may be an angel in the way .... Numbers 22:21-34)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lfrancis

I have been as harsh a critic of Ron Paul as anyone here on FR, but I have to say that based upon this statement alone, I am impressed with what he is saying.

Congressman Duncan Hunter is still my preferred candidate and will remain so, but I won’t be engaging in any more Paul-bashing.

Whether or not Paul is a viable candidate for President isn’t the issue. The principles and beliefs that he has proclaimed as his own in this statement are more than sufficient for me to take a ‘wait and see’ approach and I have to reverse myself and say that I think he should be included in every future presidential debate, and his ideas should be discussed.

And yes, I am sober.


4 posted on 07/22/2007 5:21:47 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lfrancis

Obviously prolife, I have nothing but complete agreement with him on that.

On the war, I do think we need to engage radical Islam very aggressively and decisively (which, by the way, the current crop of idiots aren’t doing). As for Paul and his stance on Iraq, I don’t completely agree, but I can respect his explanations. I’m still a Hunter supporter, but he makes a lot of sense.


5 posted on 07/22/2007 5:23:01 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (The FairTax and the North American Union are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

heh you beat me by a minute!


6 posted on 07/22/2007 5:23:59 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (The FairTax and the North American Union are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lfrancis
I also think, all in all, he is a good man.

I can't disagree, but he's a pre-9/11 man. He wants us to "define the enemy", and yet the current enemy succeeds (when it does) by being undefined, by lurking in the shadows and striking out at innocents. The enemy is defined by a fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic ideology and (to be redundant) a hatred of all things foreign to that ideology, but that's not definite enough for the Ron Pauls of the world to stand up against.

7 posted on 07/22/2007 5:25:14 AM PDT by AZLiberty (President Fred -- I like the sound of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
I’m still a Hunter supporter, but he makes a lot of sense.

Same here, and I can think of far worse things than a Hunter/Paul ticket, or even a Paul/Hunter ticket.

MKJ <-- chuckling at the images of all those Ron Paul supporters spewing their morning coffee as they think "my GAWD, that f'in mkjessup is actually comin' around?!?!?" LOL
8 posted on 07/22/2007 5:26:06 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
heh you beat me by a minute!

Great minds my FRiend, great minds. ;)
9 posted on 07/22/2007 5:26:58 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lfrancis
In general Ron Paul has the right ideas, ones I can respect, but in terms of International relations he is behind the curve. In overly simplified terms, the framers of the constitution never envisioned the world we have today, largely built by the US free enterprise system. Trying to reach back an close the door now is a bit too late. We built it, we have to deal with it, both politically, economically and militarily.

The sad thing is in taking those very strict stances he aligns himself with the looney left. His motives are entirely different, and are defensible in principal, but the result is the same.

10 posted on 07/22/2007 5:27:44 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (Hillary has already beat Rudy, She is the better cross-dresser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

I agree and think we make a grave mistake if we just shun this guy - I too am inspired by many of his ideas and convictions. Would that any of the other politicians had is spine. At least with Paul, you know where he stands and with the exception of his position on the WOT, I find it hard to disagree with him on many things related to smaller government. I just wish it was someone else making the case.

Having said that, I too am Hunter supporter and continue to believe he has the right message for the time.


11 posted on 07/22/2007 5:29:23 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lfrancis

Bump for Dr. Paul


12 posted on 07/22/2007 5:31:39 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
Trying to reach back an close the door now is a bit too late. We built it, we have to deal with it, both politically, economically and militarily.

I'm not so sure. If a hypothetical President Ron Paul were to take the step of unilaterally withdrawing the United States from the U.N. (and while I may be corrected, he might well be able to do so by executive order, as much as he would probably prefer NOT to exercise power in that way), if the U.N. were suddenly expelled from our soil, and no longer able to count on one damn red cent in U.S. funding, it would reduce that criminal enterprise to nothing but a ranting and raving association in some Third World hellhole. It would put a major kabosh on the mad embrace of globalism and internationalism.

Oh it would be a tough row to hoe, no question but it isn't out of the realm of possibility.
13 posted on 07/22/2007 5:33:19 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lfrancis
I also think, all in all, he is a good man.

Goodness is irrelevant. He's still a back-bencher. And now he has to make room on the bench for John McLame.

14 posted on 07/22/2007 5:35:20 AM PDT by bikerMD (Beware, the light at the end of the tunnel may be a muzzle flash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

“I can think of far worse things than a Hunter/Paul ticket, or even a Paul/Hunter ticket.”

I can, a Hillary/Obama ticket and they would win over your team by 20 points minimum. Get real.


15 posted on 07/22/2007 5:40:18 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

In that case, you’re on the wrong website.


16 posted on 07/22/2007 5:40:52 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
The UN is not the only issue in that. That still leaves Iraq, islamic terrorist, international trade that we are dependent on, and that’s not a bad thing because it works both ways, or should. The UN has had precious little to do with any of that except bitching.

We are past the point where isolationism will work. We need to be a player in the world because our economy depends on it. From that point we need to protect our interest politically and militarily. We can’t pull up tent stakes and come home, nor should we. There are too few of us in the US to support our economy, and if we withdraw as a player the rest of the world will move on without us. Then we are in a world of hurt, being vastly outnumbered and yet still in possession of a lot of “cool stuff” in resources, intellectual property and products.

The only way to keep that from happening is stay the major player and eliminate those that threaten us. Globalism and the like is a reality mainly due to our ever growing technology. It will not go away no matter how much one wishes it would. the masses like their stuff. Now it is up to us to determine how "USA" that globalism looks in form and nature, that's going to be the problem. Right now we a not doing too good at that.

17 posted on 07/22/2007 5:55:16 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (Hillary has already beat Rudy, She is the better cross-dresser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
In that case, you’re on the wrong website.

And why is that?

18 posted on 07/22/2007 6:25:27 AM PDT by philo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup; ejonesie22

yep, it’s about globalism in the final analysis. The reason I don’t support Thompson is his lack of copnviction regarding an ever closer union with Canada and Mexico- even if it only consists of trade agreements- for right now, of course. (The EU started the same way.)

Paul and Hunter both are not globalists in any measure of the word.


19 posted on 07/22/2007 6:38:43 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (The FairTax and the North American Union are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lfrancis
...that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.

I was waiting for the "rightful and appropriate focus....bring to justice to the jihadists" answer in his letter

What is Ron Paul answer to "rightful and appropriate focus....???

20 posted on 07/22/2007 6:39:05 AM PDT by Popman (I removed my Bushbot brain chip after he didn't veto the McCain Feingold election anti freedom bill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philo; traderrob6

We are sick of RINOs. No more. Not even at the expense of a Democrat being elected.

We’re all getting a very harsh lesson right now on where this thinking has led us. No more. Include me out.


21 posted on 07/22/2007 6:42:01 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (The FairTax and the North American Union are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lfrancis
I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle. In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Although I do not think Paul is a viable candidate at this point, I wish every rhino and democrat would feel this way on this issue.

22 posted on 07/22/2007 6:44:11 AM PDT by badpacifist (If your ass won't move there may be an angel in the way .... Numbers 22:21-34)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Popman

I believe that would be the Afghanistan campaign, taken into context.

I disagree with Paul on this, I think it’s nutcase Islam in general. The whole thing. Of course, declarign war on an entire religion, well... can we do that? I’d be up for it!


23 posted on 07/22/2007 6:45:31 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (The FairTax and the North American Union are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

Ditto. I’m not sure who I’m for at this point, and haven’t supported Ron Paul because I’m not sure I agree with him on some issues. However, I like many of his ideas, and don’t like to see him belittled, as often happens on these threads.

I haven’t committed to supporting Thompson, because I’m afraid he’s just more of the same.


24 posted on 07/22/2007 6:49:24 AM PDT by B Knotts (Anybody but Giuliani!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lfrancis
stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution

..no Dr., only the Bible has that distinction--otherwise an impressive statement...

25 posted on 07/22/2007 6:51:03 AM PDT by WalterSkinner ( In Memory of My Father--WWII Vet and Patriot 1926-2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philo
In that case, you’re on the wrong website.
And why is that?


I wasn't talking to you.
26 posted on 07/22/2007 6:54:23 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

Does this mean any old socialist will do as POTUS, so long as they have an “R” beside their name?


27 posted on 07/22/2007 6:54:25 AM PDT by Abcdefg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Yeah I know all the arguments. Been there, done that. I am sorry but that’s what will get Paul and Hunter in the end. There is nothing wrong with globalism if it is practiced correctly, and I hate to tell anyone but that Jeanie is not going back in the bottle. We are way past that now. That may not sit well with many, but it’s a fact, brought on primarily by the very technology you are using now.

Not being globalist in any sense of the word on one end and extremely “Internationalist” on the other will not work. We have to deal with the global economy. It will not go a way. Now our job is to define it in terms we can live with. We can’t do that if we are not there to play and play to win. We have to turn their ideas and practices to our advantage and will. That is the challenge for Conservatives in the 21st Century.

28 posted on 07/22/2007 6:56:59 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (Hillary has already beat Rudy, She is the better cross-dresser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lfrancis
It is wonderful that Ron Paul is a Christian. I share his view.

A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day.

Does this mean that Ron Paul only wants the President to go after those that perpetrated 9/11? If so, this is remarkably short-sighted. The terrorists that threaten us today, both at home and abroad, may or may not have had anything to do with 9/11.

29 posted on 07/22/2007 6:57:14 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZLiberty
We have defined the Enemy: Radical Islam.

Now we just need to find a way to eradicate this scourge on our modern world. Ron Paul thinks privateers and mercenaries are the key to go after non-State actors. While I feel this tool should not be ignored, it shouldn't be the only one we use. Taking out those States who knowingly harbor terror groups should also be a goal. The heck with civilian populations who allow these animals to herd them unchecked.

These groups are attacking us. This cannot go without a swift, violent, and decisive response.

Bush's "Democracy building" exercise has never worked any time it was tried before. Smash them. Destroy them. Then rebuild on the rubble. This ongoing "police action" is lunacy...

30 posted on 07/22/2007 6:59:39 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: zipper
Ron Paul and Alex Jones; conspirazoids!

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_no_doubting_warning_of_staged_provocation.htm

31 posted on 07/22/2007 7:00:44 AM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

The sad thing, smash them, destroy them, rebuild on the rubble worked in WWII. There is a modle in our history just 60 years ago and we can follow it...


32 posted on 07/22/2007 7:05:53 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (Hillary has already beat Rudy, She is the better cross-dresser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

But we aren’t. Bush and his “compassionate ‘conservatism’” aren’t doing us any favors in the War on Terrorism.


33 posted on 07/22/2007 7:08:29 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: philo

Every paulette thread should have a buffoon alert


34 posted on 07/22/2007 7:12:15 AM PDT by italianquaker (When will pelosi ask congressman ellison to apologize for his 9-11 remarks?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AZLiberty
He wants us to "define the enemy", and yet the current enemy succeeds (when it does) by being undefined,

The enemy is the states that sponsor the terrorists.
The terrorists are just a weapon, like a tank or a plane, call them proxy troops if you like.
We are down to Iran, Syria and and to a lesser extent Pakistan

Yes we needed to Declare War on 9-12 and taken on all those countries publically and decisivly.

I am a veteran, I have a son going to Qatar in November, and I stand with Ron Paul.

35 posted on 07/22/2007 7:23:44 AM PDT by JoinJuniorAchievement (“Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
Whether or not Paul is a viable candidate for President isn’t the issue. The principles and beliefs that he has proclaimed as his own in this statement are more than sufficient for me to take a ‘wait and see’ approach and I have to reverse myself and say that I think he should be included in every future presidential debate, and his ideas should be discussed.

I agree, and I tend to think that he has given more thought to his ideas than most candidates have, and I tend to think his are based more on principal than on what he thinks people want to hear.

36 posted on 07/22/2007 7:24:48 AM PDT by Amelia (Never argue with idiots - they'll bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

I don’t agree with you either. Now you can talk to me.


37 posted on 07/22/2007 7:25:54 AM PDT by philo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
If a hypothetical President Ron Paul were to take the step of unilaterally withdrawing the United States from the U.N. (and while I may be corrected, he might well be able to do so by executive order, as much as he would probably prefer NOT to exercise power in that way),

I believe his first exectutive order will be to repeal all previous executive orders.
This eliminates many bureaucracies with the stroke of a pen.

38 posted on 07/22/2007 7:29:24 AM PDT by JoinJuniorAchievement (“ I am a Veteran, I support Ron Paul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lfrancis

39 posted on 07/22/2007 7:42:48 AM PDT by lormand (...doing the research on Ron Paul that Paulistinians refuse to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6
"I can, a Hillary/Obama ticket and they would win over your team by 20 points minimum. Get real."

A Paul/ ticket would be a much closer race. Paul would siphon lots moonbat support from the RATs.

40 posted on 07/22/2007 7:49:25 AM PDT by lormand (...doing the research on Ron Paul that Paulistinians refuse to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I haven’t committed to supporting Thompson, because I’m afraid he’s just more of the same.

If it's the 'Bushbots' that are carrying his water, he IS more of the same...

41 posted on 07/22/2007 8:07:57 AM PDT by Iscool (OK, I'm Back...Now what were your other two wishes???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Yeah, I emant it to say can’t follow, so I agree.

Just do it and end it...


42 posted on 07/22/2007 8:12:03 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (Hillary has already beat Rudy, She is the better cross-dresser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: italianquaker

I am glad Ron Paul is in the US Congress, and he and his supporters should be heard. I like the fact that he says things that more pr-sensitive types won’t dare to say-you know, like most of the other candidates and maybe-candidates. He is thoughtful, and at leat tries to come up with original solutions.

Yet, I do not want Ron Paul for president. I cannot imagine him being able to lead if he has to constantly measure all the possible outcomes of every action.It’s not possible. Just imagine how past threats like the Nazis or current threats like Imperial China and the coming imposition of Islamic Law on our children would be handled by Paul-not forcefully.

With all the threats there are in the world today, from within and without, this country needs a president who:
is experienced,
has convictions,
has been consistent so we can trust his words,
understands the military and when it should and should not be sent into action,
is not too cozy with the Washington elite,
articulates the dangers we face and what he will do to fight them,
knows how to make decisions,
cares about protecting innocent human life,
and is a person of personal and public integrity.

That person, beyond doubt, is DUNCAN HUNTER.

If you don’t know what he stands for, and if you don’t see him getting free soft pr coverage like some of the other candidates and maybe candidates, you should wonder why.

www.gohunter08.com


43 posted on 07/22/2007 8:25:06 AM PDT by fetal heart beats by 21st day (Defending human life is not a federalist issue-it is the business of all humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: zipper

You are an uninformed jerk.


44 posted on 07/22/2007 8:32:42 AM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima

Didn’t I see you in this vid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq_7251dqc8


45 posted on 07/22/2007 8:43:31 AM PDT by zipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
The sad thing is in taking those very strict stances he aligns himself with the looney left.

The difference I see is that Paul's is an ideological difference based on his interpretation of the original intent of the Constitution, where as the looney left("living document") is purely political, based on hunger for power(repercussions be damned).

Unfortunately though, 2 sides of the same coin where the WOT is concerned.

46 posted on 07/22/2007 8:49:41 AM PDT by RckyRaCoCo (sing after me......de-por-ta-tion cha-cha-cha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lormand
A Paul/ ticket would be a much closer race. Paul would siphon lots moonbat support from the RATs.

I tend to agree, for many years the VP position has been seen as only a US representative to state funerals, etc., low level influence at best. However the last 6 years the MSM, their cohorts(moonbats)and even many of the(wishy washy)swing voters who eventually decide these close elections have seen VP Cheney as the power player and now that position takes on added significance.

47 posted on 07/22/2007 8:59:46 AM PDT by RckyRaCoCo (sing after me......de-por-ta-tion cha-cha-cha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RckyRaCoCo

Well put IMHO.


48 posted on 07/22/2007 9:59:59 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (Hillary has already beat Rudy, She is the better cross-dresser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: philo; traderrob6
I don’t agree with you either. Now you can talk to me.

Ok, how's the weather out your way today?

Seriously, I said to traderrob6 'you're on the wrong website' because if he has more faith in (or perhaps fears more) a 'Rat ticket of Her Beastliness + Barack Hussein Obama than has faith in a conservative Republican ticket, maybe he (and you) have to re-examine your conservative credentials?

When conservatives begin to buy into the liberal lamestream media's mantra of 'THAT conservative Republican is too [fill in the blank] right-wing, radical, extreme, polarizing, etc., we become an unwitting partner in our own political demise as conservatives.

Traderrob suggested that the Hillary/Obama ticket would beat Hunter/Paul (or Paul/Hunter) by 20 percent, and it is clear that Rob didn't think it through:

Hunter vs. Hillary in a debate?
- Hunter would eat her lunch on national security, on comparable experience in government, in every category (except mutated estrogen w/too much testosterone), Hillary would have no chance.

Paul vs. Obama in a debate?
- Paul would be teaching Obama what the Constitution means, while Obama would be whining like a sissy boy about what he "thinks" it should mean.

In every way, a Hunter/Paul ticket would totally outclass Hillary/Obama in substance, style and performance.

Any conservative who knows anything about conservative issues ought to comprehend that, and by the same token, they should already understand that FR is not about fearing what leftists, liberals and 'Rats can do or might do, it is about rallying behind true conservative candidates, NOT compromising our own conservative beliefs and values, and prevailing because we are RIGHT, not because we have allowed ourselves to be watered down and diluted by the boogey man of perceived "electability" (which is more often than not, what the MSM tells us it is).

My thoughts and views of Ron Paul are changing, and as I said, while I still prefer Duncan Hunter in the White House, I do think that Ron Paul deserves a second look.
49 posted on 07/22/2007 10:04:01 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

That’s not what I said. I fear a completely unelectable ticket with Paul either as the headliner or second place would asure us a Hillary or Obama Presidency.


50 posted on 07/22/2007 10:23:27 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-149 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson