Skip to comments.Is 2008 The New 1964?
Posted on 08/07/2007 12:04:46 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
click here to read article
And that might just be a good policy to follow in our current war. Bomb Sadr City, bomb the Triangle of Death, bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and their one refinery, and bomb the homes and offices of teh Mad Mullahs in Teheran. Watch the terrorism shrink very fast.
It'sa better plan than slogging through the job slowly for God only knows how many years.
Perhaps that is the way in which Iraq does resemble Vietnam. We need to get eh politicians out of the way and let the military win the darn war. Otherwise, we shouldn't be wasting all these lives and all this time and treasure.
FYI: nakedly imbecilic crap such as this is precisely why descriptions such as "stormfrontcandidate" are allowed as keywords on Paulestinian threads.
You're solely responsible for your own brand name image in the marketplace of ideas, ultimately.
I agree with that. Is there soem specific form a declaration of war is supposed to take? Does authorizing the use of force to defeat a specified enemy constitute a declaration of war? It certainly authorizes something that looks, sounds, feels, and smells like a war.
As I state whenever someone bring up this ridiculous phrase: "let's think about this for a moment - a group of farmers, lawyers, and businessmen sign their names to an open declaration of treason against the Crown, which controls the largest empire and the most powerful military the world has ever seen, and whose punishment for treason is generally death, and it's *NOT* a suicide pact?! I just love that one. Had the revolution turned out the way that any logically thinking person would have expected (it certainly hadn't completely succeeded just yet - see: War of 1812), every man whose name appeared on that Constitution would have been executed to serve as an example of what happens to traitors. These men put liberty far above their personal safety in the face of nearly certain death - but hey, it's not a suicide pact or anything."
Ron Paul is a wild shrimp by comparison.
No better, RON PAUL IS A COWARD. This wimp will NEVER get my vote.
I personally do not think he is presidential material and while I may agree with him on some issues, his battered spouse-syndrome regarding Islamofascists and his total lack of leadership experience lead me to continue to support him staying in Congress rather than being our parties nominee.
(My most polite post ever on FR.)
And that intel was correct, as Iraq's own documents show. Read Stephen Hayes's The connection.
Iraq's own documents also show that they did have WMDs. I am convinced that that is why the libs were so adamant about keeping Israel from invading syria. Tehy know the WMDs were moved there and they live in mortal fear that the Israelis, beingcompetent, would find them.
They-just-can’t-help-letting-it-slip-out PING. ;)
I think you’re confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
Which, of couse, would explain why his people were negotiating with Al Qaeda's people about cooperation, not to mention why our troops found a document in the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence listing one "Osama bin Laden" adn an operative of their Damascus bureau.
Which, of couse, would explain why his people were negotiating with Al Qaeda's people about cooperation, not to mention why our troops found a document in the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence listing one "Osama bin Laden" as an operative of their Damascus bureau.
Goldwater gave the Republicans the character to repudiate FDR’s New Deal. His inner circle of people like Karl Hess to Clarence Manion. It is like 1964 again when I was 10yrs old walking neighborhoods with my Mother for Goldwater. Ron Paul Karl Hess Clarence Manion.
Five GOP Presidents after Goldwater's campaign did you get what you wanted? Did America repudiate FDR's New Deal anymore than it did before?
The Anti-Paul people are just being realistic about where the country is, how it works, and what it wants. Goldwater's message is bound to come back someday, but will America ever do what Goldwater wanted?
Maybe a major crisis comes around and people support major changes, but that happens at most once in a generation.
As was I, with my oversize button that said, "If I Were 21, I'd Vote for Barry." Goldwater is one of my early heroes. I remember standing up in school to defend him and explain why I was supporting him. And the porr, publicly-educated teacher just sat there with his mouth open, unable to figure out how a kid coudl make an articulate case, since he was so convinced that Goldwater was evil.
I love freaking liberals. All these years later,it's still among the most fun things I know. And as an old debater, I love to leave tehm sputtering.
Good book recommendation, Vic Gold’s “Invasion of the Party Snatchers” Gold is Goldwater’s Press Secretary from 1964 and is also very close friends with George and Barbara Bush.
It’s a quote from another FReeper. See my profile page for the direct info. But I think the idea still stands. Someone else said it best:
The Constitution *IS* a suicide pact. Our elected officials swear an oath to uphold and protect it. Not for our flag, any State, or our Nation, but the US Constitution.
Only very, very slightly, if at all.
As someone once explained it, with the Democrats in charge it's like you're driving off a cliff at 100 miles per hour. At least the Republicans drive the speed limit. But they're still going off the cliff. What we need to do is turn the car around.
Yes, when the liberal welfare/police state completely collapses, we'll rediscover his principles in the ruins. What the conservative movement is about, or supposed to be about, is to lead us back to those principles without having to go through the ruination.
But as a wise man once said, if you're goign through Hell, keep going.
We have to do something or the dollar will collapse. Boomers retiring and endless wars is a recipe for economic Armageddon
And of course release on their guaranteed acquittal, to murder again.
George Romney ran in 1968, not 1964. And not surprisingly, nobody cared about his being a Mormon then. Of course religious bigotry was not then in fashion the way it is today.
Why did you bring it up? Are you a religious bigot?
hmm, I’ll have some of what you’re smoking.
If the revolution had failed, the way you wish, there never would have been a Contitution to sign, nor any signers to execute. Your post is incompetent and insipid to boot.
You brought up the issue....not I.
It was reported in Stephen Hayes's book.
No, it's just one piece. We have satellite intel of Russian trucks carrying materials to Syria. We have record of meetings between Saddam's people and Osama's people. The best evidence is their own documents, which were posted on the web until our government realized that one or more of them discussed how to make WMDs. Oops.
And that is just some of it.
Oh golly. I can’t wait to wage a reactive war that started with a nuclear or biological attack on American soil!
You think very conventionally.
And Goldwater’s 1964 bid was followed by the Great Society of LBJ, Nixon’s wage and price controls, Jerry Ford and “Whip Inflation Now!” and the disastrous “Give Iran to the Mullahs” Jimmuh Carter. It took us 16 years to get to Reagan...and I’m not willing to wait until 2024 to get a conservative in the White House!
you are a liberal is what you are.
if you support Ron Paul. you are a irrational liberal in sheeps clothing.
LOL Spend a little time in uniform. You’ll find it both educational and rewarding.
I would in a heartbeat if I could.
Ron Paul is not a conservative. He’s a libertarian. To a libertarian, individual liberty is the highest good in a given society. To a conservative, Tradition, Family, and Property are the ultimate values.
Ron Paul is a conservative of the old right. The traditionalist right. Google the name Clarence Manion. You’ll begin to understand.
You are so very wrong. Even solid long time conservatives see the Iraq war for the disaster it is.
1964 was a special year because of the JFK assassination. LBJ basically ran on a sympathy ticket. It was to be JFK’s “second term”. No way a republican was going to win that year. 1968 would be a good analogy because it is wide open for both parties to win, and we have a lot of debates about where we are going as a society. Further left, or a return to sanity? Don’t forget that the dems were attacked from the RIGHT in their party via Wallace. Now the dems are going harder left than they ever have, and bragging about it. I agree with Paul on about everything but Iraq, but he isn’t going anywhere with mainstream America.
9/11 showed that we can no longer afford to ignore the lunatic fringe in the Middle East. Our own progress has given them the technology to hurt us too much and our petrodollars have given them funding beyond their wildest dreams. They hate us for our success and as lunatics reason won't stop them. Stratigically there are only three choices for us: (1) Lose. This means lose EVERYTHING we value because the opposition won't settle for less than unconditional surrender and won't stop unless someone kills them, which this avoids. (2) Take out all of Islam and send Allah to join the Aztec gods. Although simple to explain this is a BIG task. Heck, even Cortez crossed the Atlantic to fight the unknown rather than to extend the Reconquista across Africa. (3) Take out the hopeless extremists of current Islam and hope and pray that the the quieter masses can be kept passive for now and eventually brought into a modern society. This is hard to explain and sell as strategy and it requires a large dose of faith to accept that it has any chance to work. However, the enormous up front costs of (1) and (2) make it foolhardy to not consider (3) and give it a fair chance. Don't repeat Hitler's mistakes - invade Russia then declare war on US after Pearl Harbor before finishing off Churchill. Try to get the high priority targets first.
The Democrats claim that (1) is cheap. I'd like them to try an experiment in Federalism. Before they impose complete defeat on the rest of this why don't they try it. How about President Limbaugh with 80% hard core conservatives, 10% RHINOs and 10% Democrats in the House and Senate. Leave the left Vermont and Oakland as enclaves for pedagogical reasons. Rush et. al. would be nicer than the lunatics to the losers. He'd just impeach the left's judges and replace them with Scalia clones. Maybe jail a few of the most obnoxious for treason. Bin Laden would behead the liberal judges, along with most of the MSM and Hollywood. After four terms of Limbaugh (David would follow Rush) then we could ask the left if they still favor defeat.
Are you feeling well? Seriously. It's a quote from another FReeper. Take a look at my profile page to see it in context if you are confused.
Democratic Debacle (1964 convention, repercussions today)
America Heritage | July 2004 (cover date) | Joshua Zeitz
Posted on 07/28/2004 12:59:49 AM EDT by SunkenCiv
Ron Paul is NOT Barry Goldwater. Not even close.
Fred Thompson is more a Goldwater than Paul...and Fred’s no Goldwater either.
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.