Surrender Should Not Be an Option

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk ^ | 09/02/2007 | Ron Paul

[Tears of a Clown]

[BlackElk]

PaleoPaulie's status as a treasonous weasel and apologist for our enemies in time of actual warfare would suffice.

As for what he "has never voted for", has he ever voted FOR anything.

Dr. Demento needs to know

That he has reached his time to go.

[NapkinUser]

Personally, I’d take the “fight them over there so we don’t fight them here” much more seriously if America’s borders were not wide open.

[tpaine]

I submit that failure to deal with the terrorism problem in the Middle East inevitably leads to more restrictions on freedom at home.

If we get out of Iraq in disgrace and encourage the fanatics, who are in poor shape right now if Osama's video is any sign, then the result is virtually certain to be more attacks here. That leads to more clampdowns, more demands by the feds to have the right to violate our freedom.
I'm sympathetic to many of Ron Paul's positions. I want a minimalist federal government too.
But giving up on the one function of the federal government that I support whole-heartedly, namely national defense, is not part of that bargain, and I think Paul is a fool to think his policies would lead to anything but a disaster for freedom.

Well said Joe.
Its a relief to find a rational viewpoint on these threads, -- one that conservative constitutionalist's of all factions can endorse.

Thanks.

[Eddie01]

strike “human debris” insert “villainous scum”

[italianquaker]

I really believe he suffers from a mental condition that could be the only reason for his behavior

[billbears]

In my opinion, Ron Paul is like an internet hoax, it stays alive the more you pass it along.

Keep telling yourself that. He's brought together a coalition of several groups, something no current Republican candidate can do. Yes right now I'll agree in the scheme of things they may be a smaller group (although he usually does get more than 4 people to show up...). However they are growing. There is discontent in the general electorate. And it's not for 'staying the course'.

If you think any candidate who advocates 'staying the course' in this current police action (now apparently for the sole cause of 'honor' if Mr. Anti-smoking is believed) will win the general election you're fooling yourself. Some of the frontrunners (like Romney) are waffling on it. By spring next year, I doubt more than a handful will continue advocating it.

[billbears]

He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against regulating the Internet. He voted against the Iraq war

All these actions are conservative and support his stance of limited government. Simple fact is if the police action hadn't been started by a Republican the support for it simply would be here.

[NapkinUser]

Simple fact is if the police action hadn't been started by a Republican the support for it simply would be here.

We have a winner!

If Al Gore had started the Iraq war with the support of a democratic majority, no one here would support this war, and opposing it sure as hell wouldn't get your patriotism questioned.

[Joe Bonforte]

"If Al Gore had started the Iraq war with the support of a democratic majority, no one here would support this war..."

I would have, because I think it was the right thing to do. And I did not support Bush the Elder's Somalia adventure, because I thought it was the wrong thing to do at the time.

I'm not a Republican. I'm a small-l libertarian, and there are times the GOP sets me off as much as the Democrats. And I certainly don't judge a matter as serious as war based on who is in the White House. So I think you need to reconsider your "no one here" stance, which sounds more than a touch sanctimonious. You're in no position to tell other people why they think the things they do. Just engage their arguments.

[NapkinUser]

Get over yourself.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Countdown to the Mods inserting the Thorazine & Bic ink pens graphic in the article...

[plain old dave]

“He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.”

Sounds good to ME.... There was no reason to go to war with Iraq that would not have been equally valid at any point between 1992 and 2003. If we can’t have Jimmy Duncan (R-TN) as President, Ron Paul would be a good choice. Plain old Dave is for Fred Thompson right now, but will plain old keep Ron Paul as an option.

[cricket]

Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves.

. . . Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. . .However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran.

What is war Ron? And who on the Left is 'fiercely willing' to defend themselves? How and at what point does the ferocity let loose? Before or after they sleep with the enemy?

Liberals are are not invested in defeat; they are committed to it. We have to go back a few years in history to understand 'why'. And this of course, is where their ferocity begins. . .and ends in a vision of an America recreated in their image.

As for the 'wisdom' of the public; the voters. . .who toay choose defeat; most cannot tell you who their Congressman is. They have been reduced to no more than 'brainwashed masses' created by a MSM that rewrites history every day through a filter of political correctness and with a defeatest; anti-American agenda.. . .and all by the most simple of sloganeering.

What 'wisdom' is to be gathered here?

[bray]

Lot of you signed up in 2000. How is the HilaryCare HQ

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Joe Bonforte]

Get over yourself.

Wow. What a comeback. I am devastated by your logic and eloquence...

Look, if you expect to debate serious subjects, you're going to have to do better than your current level of "debate". You and the other Ron Paul supporters are exhibiting all the worst characteristics of those college protestors that are as interested in making a spectacle of themselves as convincing anybody.

This is politics, bud. You win because you convince a lot of people to back your side. Acting superior by telling them that you know better than they do how their own mind works will not win you any political debates or battles. And it tells the undecideds exactly how weak your own position is.

[LibLieSlayer]

“Ron Turd is a traitor”

I am beginning to think that his supporters are too.

LLS

[LtKerst]

Ron Paul is a Moron
A seditious Fink.

[Admin Moderator]

f Al Gore had started the Iraq war with the support of a democratic majority, no one here would support this war.

Bull.

[crazyshrink]

I did realize what you meant and feel like I took advantage of you.

For me it is the total of the 16 and the characterization of Mr. Paul’s agenda as a “never and always” agenda. For me that demonstrates a rigidity that I find unworkable. IMHO, the world is not black and white and there is not always a “correct” solution.

The Iraq war is a reasonable example. Reasonable people can, and did, disagree about the appropriateness of the war’s beginning. However, the decision was made to go to war. Those in the minority then, have a responsibility and duty to accept majority rule w/o shrinking to the level of a Murtha, Schumer, etc. Opposition is fine, traitorous comments and actions are not.

I am not saying Mr. Paul has stooped to these levels as I have not paid much attention to his comments nor have I watched a second of any debates. I have read MSM and others biased apperceptions (their opinions as perceived thru their life experiences) of all candidates words and have formed my own opinions of each candidate.

IMHO, too many candidate supporters are “personalizing” their rhetoric about their candidates. Each of us, including you and Mr. Paul, have a right to our opinions and others have a right to agree/disagree with them. R.E., their words/opinions, and preferably not them personally.