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
Abortion is not a liberal or conservative issue it is more of a moral/bioethics issue. There are liberals who are pro-life and conservatives who are pro-choice. I personally oppose abortion and if my state legislature decides to ban it that will be the right thing to do. However, I absolutely abhor the idea that a constitutional amendment could be passed which would ban the practice in all 50 states, never mind the wishes of the persons in the individual states.
To me, using a federal law to mandate abortion be illegal everywhere in the country is no different than using a federal law to mandate that civilian firearms ownership will now be illegal. By the way, neither of these ideas will go over well if you attempt them and are likely to spike mass resistance and non-compliance.
I am certainly no fan of Paul, but it is nice to see that there is a candidate in the race who actually stands up for state’s rights, which after all, was the platform of Goldwater in ‘64 and the platform that elected Reagan. It was all about state’s rights, and the idea that Washington should not have a say on the internal affairs of the respective states. It distresses me that there are many people in this country primarily evangelicals, who have carried their love of big government with them as the switched parties and now seek to use big national government in order to force upon the entire country their ideal of society, even though parts of the country clearly don’t want it.
I don’t buy the idea that there is such a thing as big government conservativism, unfortunately, fewer and fewer people agree with me.
Someon is flying over the Cuckoo nest.
Ron Paul comes from the “Neville Chamberlain” wing of conservatism. This is World War 3 folks.
Here is something from ‘64 that we need to hear right now !
Ronald Reagan. A Time For Choosing. (exerpt)
that is the issue of this campaign that makes all of the other problems I have discussed academic, unless we realize that we are in a war that must be won.
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple.
If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain (OR Radical Islam), “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.
Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev (Osama or President Tom, take your pick) has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War (War on Terror), and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he would rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ‘round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it’s a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said that “the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
Hey, let’s not stop with adding Ron Paul to Spongebob as the Wild Shrimp. We can add Brownback as the Feckless Flounder for his immigration trevails. McCain as the Blowhard Blowfish. Guiliani as the Androgynous Angler. And Mitt the Flip as a dolphin that is trying to learn how to turn to the right but having some trouble.
You’re confused. Barry Goldwater never supported LBJs Vietnam adventure. He said declare war and win it, or get out. Ron Paul has already demonstated that he will support and fight a defensive war. Declare war and get congressional approval. Just like Goldwater. Thanks for the reply!
######Ive even see so called conservatives on this site label Goldwater a liberal because well, as a true conservative, he could no more well tolerate federal intervention on the side of right-wing issues than he could for the intervention on left-wing issues.#####
Goldwater supported quite a bit of federal intervention to support leftist policies in his old age. Check out the quote below about 85 year old Goldwater from the Washington Post (full link below):
“This month he signed on as honorary co-chairman of a drive to pass a federal law preventing job discrimination against homosexuals. The effort, dubbed Americans Against Discrimination, is being spearheaded by the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the influential gay lobbying organization.”
Ron Paul is such a loser. Come on man. Ron Paul does not even believe this is a war we must win.
I’m too old for childish insults. If you have a thoughtful reply, I will do the same. Thanks all!
When's the last time anyone won a defensive war?
You have a good point, we can’t afford to lose Europe to Islamo-Fascists.
“Say, That all sounds good, but do you have anything without shrimp in it?” ,.}
Barry Goldwater said to use tactical nuclear weapons. THAT'S what scared people.
He said declare war and win it, or get out.
You have to go there to win it, however.
Ron Paul has already demonstated that he will support and fight a defensive war.
Perhaps, but the problem with Ron Paul is that if he got his way on foreign policy, we'd HAVE to fight a defensive war. On our own soil. Because he wouldn't have the foresight to realise that sometimes, you have to fight pre-emptive wars to keep the bad guys from coming to you on their terms. It's a lesson as old as Thucydides....
Declare war and get congressional approval. Just like Goldwater. Thanks for the reply!
What part of "congressional authorisation for the war" do you think doesn't mean "congressional approval"?
Do you not see the distinction?? A defensive war is one in which we are attacked. Now we are launching preemptive wars thus junking the very principles of this country.
Hitler turned Germany into a superpower because England and France refused to engage in an offensive war against him. So a war that would have cost a few lives - one to take out Hitler when he was weak - ended up costing 60 million.
Such is the price of avoiding offensive war in the name of some abstract sanctimonious pseudo-morality that is anything but moral.
Maybe you have forgotten but we were attacked by the enemy.
Hmm - we were not attacked in 1848. Or 1898. Or 1918. We were not attacked prior to Vietnam. Or Gulf War I.
We've had plenty of wars that were not in response to immediate attack. What do you think Saddam would be like today if he had been allowed to keep Kuwait and its oil revenues?
Sure, there should be plenty of cattle down in Paul’s district, just look at all the BS he has at hand....
Then have Congress declare war.
What do you call certain events of early September of 2001?
We weren’t attacked by Iraq. Iraq has never been a threat to the United States. Ron did vote for going after Osama.
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.