Posted on 09/26/2007 11:45:25 AM PDT by traviskicks
You be BAD!
Reasoned debate? I dont like Rudy...but maybe you should ask him after the Ferry foray.
Didnt look to my as if the Paul supporters were interested in anything that resembled reasoned.
LOL I was afraid of Kerry! I mean ...scary
You're right. Just today I passed an '83 Cavalier with a "Ron Paul 2008" and an "infowars.com" bumper sticker. Salt of the earth.
Deal with what? A Ron Paul nomination? The same way I deal with all situations which are hypothetically possible and almost completely impossible. Not giving it a lot of "worry time" and living my life.
You forgot the spittake warning.
Don’t you get it? If we don’t all shill for Ron Paul we are DOOMED because Paul’s base won’t vote GOP. It’s like extortion. Extortionists who of course only have our Constitution in mind.
I agree, but making mistakes on the war front, and war strategy is one thing, making mistakes on the homeland front, that puts the homeland at critical risk is entirely another issue altogether. It's inexcusable to jeopardize national security, when national security should be above all, paramount and priority #1.
We are told this war is all about the security of America, when clearly this is not the case, when looking at our lawless, chaotic borders and an invasion of millions, all during war time.
Sure, sure....so your posting on Paul threads hyperventilating with your buddies, you're just having fun, right?
I will repeat: it is not a valid criticism to say he was an avid supporter of CFR. There was nothing wrong in his support of CFR. He wanted to drive corruption out of politics and CFR was his vehicle to do so. That others added amendments that restricted ads in a certain timeframe before election is something that fell out of his control.
You caught me. So I really work for the Republican Party and the Council on Foreign Relations and do some work consulting for the Zionist Occupied Government. And I'm paid to go around bashing Ron Paul's very sound and imminently executable ideas. Really, at heart I would vote for Ron Paul and his ReLOVEution but a job is a job.
As far as I know, “defacement” of currency is only illegal if the action makes the denomination or serial numbers illegible.
“if they want to stand around on street corners and scream his name like fools, who am I to stop them.”
That’s funny, because no other candidates were doing sign waves this year until the Ron Paul people did it. Now the Fred Thompson people have taken to coming to Ron Paul sign waves here in NH and trying to crash our party.
I have found that Paul supporters seem to consistently ignore laws they don't like such as defacement of currency, internet gambling and smoking pot. The latter is probably where you are picking up most of your younger supporters. IF he gets into office, then you can change the laws to your liking, but until then what you are doing is illegal and I will call you on it. As I said, I will stick to hanging out with a better class of law abiding citizens.
That others added amendments that restricted ads in a certain timeframe before election is something that fell out of his control.
Sorry, don't buy that. It's like saying gun registration laws are a vehicle to drive gun violence out of the ghettos. CFR was fundamentally flawed from the start, and there was no lack of conservatives pointing out the flaws while he was sponsoring it in the Senate. It was a bad and unconstitutional approach to a problem that originates, not with the public using money to fund points of view, but with the politicians themselves, who hide the source of cash and are easily influenced. Essentially, Thompson and McCain wrote a law that restricted MY free speech because THEY couldn't trust themselves and their fellow congressmen to remain honest.
Moreover, the ban on issue ads was a direct assault on political speech, which was INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL BILL that Thompson sponsored. To say now that those parts were added by others, and that he had no say, doesn't wash. He personally filed an amicus brief to the USSC defending the provisions only four years ago, as a private citizen out of the Senate, so clearly he thought they were still a good idea in 2003.
Thompson needs to own up on this and either clarify his continued support or repudiate it unambiguously. Vague "it didn't work out quite right" statements are not sufficient.
You support bribery and corruption in Congress. You live in a different universe than nearly anyone else.
The rest of your hot air comment is misguided ranting bordering on gibberish. I don’t need it and I am sure most others are likewise.
What a BS strawman. Bribery and corruption are already illegal, and were long before Thompson's CFR bill, which clearly did little to stop either one. There is absolutely nothing corrupt about the NRA running an advertisement critical or supportive of a specific candidate within 60 days of an election. What is corrupt is when the politician or others are secretly funneling funds to the organization to run ads. CFR banned the former and established an easy way for Soros and Move-on to do the latter, via 527s. All that was needed were full disclosure rules.
I support free speech and the First amendment. And since the provision was struck down by the Supreme Court, despite Fred Thompson's ardent support for it in his court brief, I would guess they agree with me and not with him or you.
The rest of your hot air comment is misguided ranting bordering on gibberish. I don’t need it and I am sure most others are likewise.
You resemble a liberal: when facts are presented to you, you plug your ears and shout, "La, la, la, la! I can't hear you!" If you think citing verifiable facts is "gibberish", that either means you haven't bothered to read them, or are incapable of understanding them.
Which brings this full circle. Instead of addressing the valid criticism, once again a fan boy has instead resorted to attacking the critic with a logical fallacy. In your case, the classical strawman.
Person A: "I don't support the Assault Weapons Ban."
Person B: "You support murder and mayhem in the streets."
is exactly the same as:
Me: "I don't support CFR."
You: "You support bribery and corruption in Congress."
That's my dilemna too. In looking at his voting record I agree with everything he's done EXCEPT issues relating to foreign policy. His voting record seems to indicate he's against abortian, against big government, against high taxes, for gun rights, for personal freedoms/accountability, for homeschooling, for American sovereignty, for border security.
He just seems to have a really screwed up view on terrorism and the mission of radical Islam.
It's a tough call (for me at least).
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.