Posted on 09/18/2007 11:07:18 PM PDT by NapkinUser
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul had a good week. On Sunday, he made off with the Manchester GOP straw poll (Paul took 66 percent; Thompson was next, with 10 percent. Sam Brownback came in last, with half a percentage point). Soon after, Paul picked up the endorsement of Rep. Paul Ingbretson.
(Excerpt) Read more at cmonitor.com ...
Hey my friend, how do you reconcile being pro-Paul and Pro-Tanc? Besides being swell guys? They are diametrically opposed in their reactions to the war on terrorists.
Not being hostile, just curious.
Ron Paul wins big Manchester, New Hampshire straw poll.
Reminds me of those guys at the airport collecting for that tax evader from Missouri.
The war of terror isn't my big issue. Illegal immigration, fiscal conservatism, gun rights and American sovereignty are. And Paul and Tancredo are best on all of those issues combined.
Paul wants secure borders and to end birthright citizenship. He's pro-tax cuts and probably the most conservative member of congress when it comes to second amendment rights. Paul also supports withdrawing the U.S. from the UN (he authored the bill), opposed CAFTA and opposes the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).
Tancredo, well everyone knows about him on illegal immigration. He's got the highest rating of any republican candidate from the ACU. He wins the "friend of the taxpayer" award every year and was one of like ten congressmen to try and reign in federal spending immediatly following hurricane Katrina. Tancredo has an 'A' from the gun owners of America. He supports withdrawing the U.S. from the UN, voted against CAFTA and also opposes LOST.
In 2 of those 4 points Hunter exceeds Paul and Tanc. One -guns- is a tie. Though no one fought the AWB harder than Hunter, and I mean no one. Since HUnter advcates huge spending on the military, he gets dinged by groups like Club for Growth.
Thanks for the answer though. Does splain it. BTW, we will be at war a long time, and it could be with China as well.
I find it interesting that you claim not to be hostile since you and some of your friends are quite hostile and troll-like on every Ron Paul thread.
However, I can explain it with ease. If you are a Ron Paul supporter mainly because of his opposition to Iraq, then you'll only like Paul among the Republicans and also find yourself supporting some of the Dems. That's not me or, I suspect, most of the FReeper Ron Paul supporters.
On the other hand, if you like Paul mainly because of his opposition to big government, the North American Union, the CFR, ect. (that's where I'm coming from) - then you'll like Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter - pretty much in that order. The other Republicans running are a bunch of big government, globalist CFR members.
Democratic candidates - big government socialists, who are also CFR one worlders, are even more repulsive. But from where I stand - there isn't much difference between Clinton/Obama and Rudy McThomney - either way, kiss American sovereignty good-bye.
Did that answer your question?
He was just asking, don't make anything of it.
This guy is a 100% cuckoo, he has no chance. When will this guy go away. Are there this many crazy people in this country keeping his candidacy alive? Wow are we in trouble. He’s the Dennis Kucinich of the GOP and that’s not a good thing.
Dennis Kucinich: Wants to increase the number of federal departments.
Ron Paul: Wants to decrease the number of federal departments.
I'll just leave it with that one, but Kucinich and Paul are nothing alike. Not on taxes and spending. Not on guns rights. Not on illegal immigration. Not on education. Not on health care. Not on foreign issues even.
Plus, look at Kucinich's 2008 slogan: "Strength through Peace".
Enough said?
As you may recall, Bush ‘41 essentially went to sleep for 10 months — letting his COS essentially try to run th nation.
From my perspective, I let my emotions get way ahead of political reality.
Regardless of Paul’s Libertarian appeal to our more pristine conservative principles, functioning democracy requires effective leadership to wallow in the nastiness of the vast wretched swamp called Political Reality — the huge grey middle ground that embodies any real semblance of functioning democratic government!
We are in a global war for the survival of Western Democracy — and a way of life that our fore-bearers gave blood and treasure for (including my father) !
I submit that we serious Republicans would do well to remember this lesson.
Paul is irrelevant in the scheme of credible political discourse. He represents a very intellectually flawed fringe of the party that would rather go down with the Good Ship Principle — than swim for a lifeboat — to fight another day -- for the overall welfare (and ultimate survival) of our Republic.
Rant over, but this is serious stuff, folks.
The polls showing little public support for our current nation building exercise is a reality that you should not ignore.
As far as this war and political reality go, William F. Buckley once remarked that the defining element of conservatism is realism--realism about the limits of state power, the nature of human beings and societies, the complexity of international life. Yet many conservatives who believe that the state can do nothing right at home think that it can do nothing wrong abroad. (If things go badly, why, more money, bigger bombs and ground troops will straighten it out.) Many who are scornful of social engineering at home seem sure it will work beyond our borders. They seem convinced that good intentions and a burst of state power can transform the world. How conservative is that?
Ron Paul appeals to republicans, democrats and libertarians. For different reasons, but he still appeals to every group. He'd wipe the floor with Hillary Clinton. Paul wouldn't look like a gigantic hypocrite on Iraq like she would.
I have been watching this discussion with interest, as I was naive enough to think that Perot could make a bit of a difference in ‘92.
Let's try this again:
Perot: general election
Paul: republican primary
Paul ain't a spoiler candidate.
The man is a loser. The big issue is our security.
He does’nt get it!
Any cheap so-called conservative candidate will
talk about tax cuts and fiscal responsibility.
Hey, Alan Keyes has made his pitch for President.
Running mates?
or
Paul/Sheehan '08?
I agree. Paul is one of the few candidates who is serious about border security. I don't want another so-called conservative in office for 4-8 years doing nothing to secure this country.
Appeasing dictators is what Mr. Paul would do.
He’s going to talk to them. Another Jimmah Carter. There is a
serious flaw with Paul’s thinking.
No doubt about it if straw polls determined the Republican nominee Paul would have it wrapped up already..... But they don’t so on with the campaign.
I’ve asked before and wonder if you’d care to speculate..... Assuming Paul doesn’t win the Republican nomination where do you think his supporters will land if they stay in the process?
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.